Principals’ Perceptions of Students Experiencing Homelessness in Cyber Charter
Schools Compared to Brick-and-Mortar Schools in Pennsylvania

A Dissertation
Presented to
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
Department of Education
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Morgan Ostasewski Baker
Proposed Graduation May 8, 2026
© Morgan Ostasewski Baker, 2026
Keywords: homelessness, cyber charter schools, brick-and-mortar schools, principals, high
school

2
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Committee Members

Committee Chair: Dr. Whitney Wesley, Ed.D
Professor for the Department of Curriculum, Instruction & Educational Leadership
Graduate Coordinator for the EdD Educational Leadership & Administration; Pk-12
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Mark Hogue, Ph.D
Associate Professor for the Department of Curriculum Instruction & Educational ​ ​
Leadership
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Michael Panza, Ed.D
Instructor for the Department of Curriculum Instruction & Educational Leadership
Slippery Rock University
Committee Member: Dr. Tricia Shelton, Ed.D
Professor for the Department of Curriculum Instruction & Educational Leadership
Slippery Rock University

3
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS

Abstract
Youth homelessness continues to rise in Pennsylvania, with over 40,000 students
identified as experiencing homelessness (SEH) in 2023. As a result, educational leaders are
tasked with creating equitable support systems. This study investigated the perceptions of high
school principals regarding SEH in cyber charter schools compared to traditional
brick-and-mortar schools, examining their support strategies, their preparedness to implement
the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA), and actual student graduation outcomes. Grounded in
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN),
the research explores how school settings and systemic layers influence the academic
pathways of vulnerable students. This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods
design, collecting qualitative and quantitative data concurrently from a purposive sample of
forty-four Local Education Agencies (LEAs) with at least 5% of their enrollment experiencing
homelessness. Data was gathered through a seventeen-question survey completed by
twenty-six high school administrators ( nbrick-and-mortar=21, ncyber=5) and graduation rate data
retrieved from the SchoolHouse Connection database. The findings revealed that while
principals in both school models prioritize social-emotional support and basic needs, their
operational strategies diverge based on the medium of instruction. Cyber charter principals
placed a statistically higher priority on technological infrastructure (p < .05), such as providing
hardware and hotspots, whereas brick-and-mortar leaders focused more heavily on
transportation and extracurricular access. Notably, 40% of cyber principals emphasized that
virtual settings protect the “dignity” of SEH by maintaining confidentiality regarding their housing
status. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in principals' perceived
preparedness or understanding of MKVA across school types, leading to the retention of the null
hypothesis for research question two. Furthermore, research question three found no

4
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
statistically significant difference in the graduation rates of SEH between cyber charter and
brick-and-mortar schools. These results validate school choice, suggesting that cyber charter
schools provide a viable and effective alternative for SEH by achieving academic parity with
traditional models while offering a more flexible learning environment. This study offers critical
insights for policy and practice, advocating for data-driven leadership training and the
preservation of diverse educational options to meet the foundational and academic needs of
Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable students.

5
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to four individuals who provided unwavering support and
encouragement throughout this journey as well as the millions of children experiencing
homelessness. First, to my husband, Blailin: I am profoundly grateful for all the ways you
encouraged and supported me throughout this journey; both big and small. Thank you for being
my thought partner when my ideas lacked words; your patience in listening to my endless
rambling helped more than you’ll ever know. I recognize and appreciate the dinners cooked, the
children entertained, and the personal sacrifices you made to give me the space to dive into a
topic so close to my heart.
To my boys, Cohen and Jaxon: I carry so much gratitude for the grace you showed when
I needed space to write. Those unexpected hugs while I sat typing for hours were the fuel I
didn't know I needed. I hope you see this accomplishment as a goal you can strive for, and more
importantly, a reminder that hard things are worth the effort and when you are passionate, it will
never feel like work.
To Dr. Whitney Wesley: While our time together was short, your advice and feedback
were invaluable. I am deeply appreciative of your willingness to support me despite our paths
having only recently crossed. Your kindness and expertise gave me the strength to continue
when I questioned my own abilities. I am forever grateful that you took a chance on me.

Finally, I dedicate this work to the children currently experiencing homelessness whose
lived experiences are at the core of this study. While this dissertation is an academic milestone,
its true purpose is to advocate for you. It is my deepest hope that the findings within this
dissertation contribute to meaningful change, no matter the scale. Your resilience is the
heartbeat of this research, and you deserve to be seen, heard, and supported.

6
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Acknowledgements
First, I wish to acknowledge the children experiencing homelessness. I also wish to
acknowledge and thank my dissertation committee of both my chair, Dr. Whitney Wesley, and
committee members Dr. Tricia Shelton, Dr. Mark Hogue, and Dr. Michael Panza. When seeking
committee members, I knew, without a doubt, who I wanted on my team. Whether I had you as
an instructor or this is our first time working together, I knew each of you had special abilities
that would help this journey be meaningful. I have received praise from all of you throughout this
process and crucial feedback to help me push to create a product I’m so proud of. I was able to
share my love and passion for my dissertation topic with each of you and you all recognized the
importance of my research in the field of education. I appreciate you all dedicating your time to
supporting me throughout this process. Without the passion for education each of you have, I
would not have felt as comfortable as I did during each step of the dissertation process with any
other dissertation committee.

7
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table of Contents
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................3
Dedication......................................................................................................................................5
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................6
List of Tables................................................................................................................................10
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. 11
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................ 12
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 12
Statement of the Problem...................................................................................................... 12
Purpose of Study................................................................................................................... 13
Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................................... 14
Research Questions and Hypothesis.................................................................................... 16
Research Methods.................................................................................................................17
Terms and Definitions............................................................................................................ 19
Summary............................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 2: Literature Review....................................................................................................... 22
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 22
Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................................... 23
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory................................................................. 23
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.......................................................................................... 26
Impact of the Theoretical Framework on the Study......................................................... 27
The Youth Homelessness Crisis............................................................................................ 28
The Data.......................................................................................................................... 28
Defining and Identifying Homelessness...........................................................................29
Risk Factors of Homelessness........................................................................................ 31
Academic Outcomes of Homeless Youth...............................................................................32
Student Achievement.......................................................................................................32
Post-Secondary Outcomes.............................................................................................. 33
Unique Needs of Homeless Youth......................................................................................... 34
Student Needs................................................................................................................. 34
Importance of Relationships............................................................................................ 35
Additional Best Practices................................................................................................. 36
Impact of Deficit Thinking.................................................................................................36
Policy to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness...................................................... 39
The Requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act................................................................ 39
Act 1 of Pennsylvania...................................................................................................... 40
Barriers to Implementation...............................................................................................40
Overcoming Barriers of Implementation.......................................................................... 41
School Choice Matters...........................................................................................................42
Educational Philosophy....................................................................................................42

8
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Schooling Options in Pennsylvania..................................................................................43
Cyber Charter Schools Versus Brick-And-Mortar Schools.................................................... 45
Different Models...............................................................................................................46
Academic Achievement & Student Outcomes................................................................. 47
Cyber Learner Profile & Enrollment Factors.................................................................... 49
Funding Controversy........................................................................................................52
The Role of School Leaders.................................................................................................. 54
The Need for Further Research.............................................................................................56
Summary............................................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 3: Research Method.......................................................................................................58
Research Questions and Hypotheses................................................................................... 58
Research Design................................................................................................................... 60
Population and Sample..........................................................................................................61
Instrumentation...................................................................................................................... 62
Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................63
Ethical Considerations........................................................................................................... 66
Validity and Reliability............................................................................................................ 67
Limitations..............................................................................................................................69
Summary............................................................................................................................... 69
Chapter 4: Findings..................................................................................................................... 71
Review of Research Design.................................................................................................. 72
Review of Analysis Methods..................................................................................................73
Participants............................................................................................................................ 77
Presentation of the Findings.................................................................................................. 79
Research Question 1....................................................................................................... 79
Research Question 2....................................................................................................... 88
Research Question 3....................................................................................................... 97
Summary............................................................................................................................. 101
Chapter 5: Discussion................................................................................................................106
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 106
Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................106
Strategies to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ1).............................107
Preparedness and Implementation of MKVA (RQ2)...................................................... 107
Graduation Rates of Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ3).............................. 108
Discussion of Results.......................................................................................................... 108
Research Question 1..................................................................................................... 109
Research Question 2..................................................................................................... 114
Research Question 3..................................................................................................... 115
Implications.......................................................................................................................... 116
Enhancing MKVA Oversight........................................................................................... 119
Strengthening Leadership through Data-Driven PD...................................................... 120

9
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Validating School Choice for SEH..................................................................................120
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................... 121
Recommendations for Future Research..............................................................................123
Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 124
References................................................................................................................................ 126
Appendix A: Questionnaire........................................................................................................ 139
Appendix B: Request to Use Questionnaire.............................................................................. 145
Appendix C: Consent to Use Questionnaire.............................................................................. 146
Appendix D: IRB Approval......................................................................................................... 147
Appendix E: Informational Letter............................................................................................... 147
Appendix F: Recruitment Email................................................................................................. 153

10
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
List of Tables

Table 1. Research Question Data Analysis Summary...............................................................76
Table 2. Participant Responses to Demographic Survey Items.................................................78
Table 3. Participant Demographics Percentages.......................................................................79
Table 4. Open-Ended Emerging Themes by School Type.........................................................80
Table 5. MKVA Success Measures by School Type..................................................................83
Table 6. Services for SEH by School Type................................................................................85
Table 7. Communication Methods by School Type....................................................................87
Table 8. MKVA Professional Development by School Type.......................................................89
Table 9. Perception of Principals’ Preparedness by School Type..............................................91
Table 10. Comparison of Hypothesis Results of Graduation Rates of SEH versus School Type
Using Different Approaches to Interval-Censored Data...........................................................101

11
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
List of Figures
Figure 1. Ecological Systems Theory..........................................................................................24
Figure 2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.......................................................................................27
Figure 3. Guide to Choosing an Education Model for Your Child................................................45
Figure 4. Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Understanding Between School
Types...........................................................................................................................................93
Figure 5. Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Effectiveness Between School
Types...........................................................................................................................................95
Figure 6. Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Knowledge and Training Between
School Types ..............................................................................................................................96
Figure 7. Graduation Rates of SEH by School Type...................................................................98
Figure 8. Comparison of Graduation Rates for SEH Between School Types..............................99
Figure 9. Needs of SEH Withing the MHN Framework..............................................................112
Figure 10. Ecological Systems of SEH......................................................................................118

12
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduction

​

Students experiencing homelessness (SEH) face profound barriers to education that

extend beyond academics. Homelessness affects attendance, academic performance, social
relationships, and access to essential services such as meals and counseling (Morgan, 2018).
SEH continues to rise, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic. In Pennsylvania alone, more
than 40,000 students were identified as homeless in 2023, reflecting a 5% increase since 2019
(National Center for Homeless Education, 2023). As the number of SEH rises, educational
settings must evolve to meet their needs. Schools play a crucial role in supporting SEH.
As a result of the growing population of SEH, The McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) was
passed in 1987. The MKVA defined homelessness and created safeguards to ensure SEH had
equal access to free and appropriate education and in 2022 Pennsylvania passed additional
legislation under Act 1 to support on-time graduation for SEH. While these policies have positive
intentions, there are many barriers that still limit academic achievement and outcomes of SEH.
School staff report feeling inadequate in understanding the requirements and strategies for SEH
and the need for adequate funding (Von Dohlen et al., 2019; Wagaman et al., 2022; Wright et
al., 2019).

Statement of the Problem
Schools serve as the epicenter of communities and provide academic support,
counseling, mental health support, and resources to secure appropriate housing and other basic
needs (Havlik et al., 2014; Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). However,
many SEH and their families report having many negative experiences in school. There is a
stigma around homelessness and some staff experience deficit thinking (Cumming & Gloeckner,
2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2021) leading to negative

13
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
academic outcomes. In addition, the rigidity and lack of flexibility in most schools heavily
impacts attendance and achievement (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022).
While schools may be the epicenter of communities, principals are the crux of effective
schools with their impact being only second to effective teachers. Principals are crucial to
ensuring a purpose and vision, developing their staff, and strengthening school culture
(Leithwood et al., 2004). In addition, prior studies conducted regarding SEH found school staff
advocated for strong school leadership and sought their guidance on effective systems and
strategies to support SEH (Harris, 2012). In addition, they are key to implementing MKVA and
Act 1 (Ferguson & Francis, 2024). To support SEH and ensure positive academic outcomes,
principals must ensure understanding of MKVA at their schools, advocate for student needs,
implement school-based programs to meet the needs of SEH, and build strong relationships
with families, SEH, and staff (Jones, 2024).
While principals play a crucial role in SEH, not all schools have the structure to support
SEH, and policies such as MKVA and Act 1 of Pennsylvania are not enough. School choice
allows students and families to select schools that meet their needs. The flexibility of cyber
charter schools makes them a potential option to meet the needs of SEH in a way that
traditional brick-and-mortar schools cannot. However, there is political controversy around cyber
charter schools in Pennsylvania due to their general lack of academic performance (Cordes,
2024; Kingsbury et al., 2022; Ulum, 2022). This has led to additional inquiries into their funding
and current legislation in Pennsylvania seeks to decrease their funding significantly (Scolforo,
2025).

Purpose of Study
Despite the protections afforded by MKVA (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.) and state-level
policies like Act 1, SEH continue to face inequities in education. There is limited empirical

14
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
research comparing the perspectives of school leaders across these models, particularly at the
high school level. In addition, previous studies indicate cyber students have lower academic
achievement than brick-and-mortar schools; however, they fail to address the exact cause.
Further questions have been raised to perpetuate a “chicken or the egg” debate. Do students
attending cyber charter schools perform poorly because of the instruction they receive at the
cyber charter school or were these students already struggling at their brick-and-mortar schools
and they sought cyber programs to better meet their needs? ​

​

Just as the population of SEH continues to rise in Pennsylvania, so does the enrollment
of cyber charter schools. In addition, principals play a crucial role in the implementation of
policies meant to support SEH and general achievement of schools (Harris, 2012; Leithwood et
al., 2004). This study focused on the intersection of SEH, cyber charter education versus
brick-and-mortar education, and the role of principals by studying principals’ perceptions of SEH
in cyber charter school compared to brick-and-mortar high schools in Pennsylvania. The
outcomes of this study can inform policy, training, and practices across Pennsylvania
addressing SEH and the options available to them via school choice.
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in two interrelated theoretical models: Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Systems Theory (EST) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN). These frameworks
are essential for understanding how external systems and individual needs intersect to shape
the experiences and academic outcomes of students experiencing homelessness (SEH).
EST states that human development is influenced by five nested systems: the
microsystem (e.g., family, school), mesosystem (interactions between microsystems),
exosystem (community influences), macrosystem (societal values and policies), and
chronosystem (historical and temporal factors) (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b).

15
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Each of these layers plays a role in shaping the educational environment of SEH. For example,
school staff, peers, and access to extracurricular support exist within the microsystem, while
laws such as the McKinney-Vento Act and school funding decisions reside in the exosystem and
macrosystem. This study applies EST to explore how these systemic layers affect principal
perceptions and responses to SEH across different school models.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN) complements EST by emphasizing the foundational
needs that must be met for individuals to achieve personal growth and academic success.
Maslow’s model is organized into five tiers: physiological needs (e.g., food, shelter), safety (e.g.,
stability, health), love and belongingness (e.g., peer and teacher relationships), esteem (e.g.,
achievement, respect), and self-actualization (e.g., personal growth) (Guy-Evans, 2025a). For
SEH, physiological and safety needs are often unmet, limiting their ability to engage fully in
school. Principals play a critical role in recognizing and responding to these barriers by fostering
safe, supportive environments and ensuring access to services. In cyber charter schools,
meeting these needs may be particularly complex due to the lack of physical space, while
brick-and-mortar settings may offer more direct support but face challenges in consistency and
outreach. MHN helps frame how principals conceptualize their responsibilities in meeting these
layered student needs.
Together, EST and MHN provide a conceptual foundation for this study’s inquiry into how
high school principals perceive and respond to the needs of SEH in cyber versus
brick-and-mortar schools. EST allows for analysis of how school setting, policy implementation,
and community structures shape principal actions, while MHN underscores the urgent,
individualized needs of SEH that schools must address. These frameworks will guide the
analysis of principal survey responses and inform the interpretation of how school leaders
navigate their roles within diverse educational models. Previous research has also employed
these theories to examine SEH, reinforcing their relevance to this study (Jones, 2024;

16
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Wagaman et al., 2022). By drawing on these established models, this study offers a structured
lens through which to explore the systems, relationships, and responsibilities influencing the
academic pathways of students experiencing homelessness.

Research Questions and Hypothesis
The fundamental questions associated with this research study are:
RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber
charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing
homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?
RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools
regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?
H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​
schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar
H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​
schools.
H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar

17
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in
brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High
Schools?
H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools
​

versus brick-and-mortar schools.

​

H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar

H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools ​
versus brick-and-mortar schools.

​

H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar

Research Methods

​

This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to examine and

compare principals’ perceptions of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber and
brick-and-mortar high schools across Pennsylvania. In this design, qualitative and quantitative
data were collected concurrently, analyzed separately, and then integrated to produce a holistic
understanding of the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Quantitative components
included Likert-scale survey responses, select multi-select questions, and graduation rate data
from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a), while qualitative components consisted of open-ended
survey responses from principals and assistant principals. The independent variable for this
study was the type of school (i.e., cyber or brick-and-mortar) and the dependent variables were
the principals’ perceptions, strategies, and SEH graduation outcomes. This design was selected
over other mixed-methods models because it allowed both data types to be collected in a single

18
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
phase, enabling a comprehensive and simultaneous analysis of measurable trends and
contextual insights (Shahbaz, 2021).

​

The mixed-methods approach was particularly well-suited to this study because it

addressed all three research questions: (1) identifying support systems and strategies used by
principals; (2) exploring differences in perceptions and understanding of McKinney-Vento Act
implementation; and (3) comparing SEH graduation outcomes between school types. The
quantitative data captured generalizable patterns, such as graduation rates and levels of
preparedness, while the qualitative data offered depth, voice, and nuance to interpret those
patterns meaningfully. The integration of both data types strengthened the reliability and
richness of the findings and mitigated the limitations inherent in relying solely on one
methodological approach (Wasti et al., 2022). This methodology supports the study's goal of
capturing both the systemic and interpersonal dynamics that shape how principals support SEH
across educational settings.

​

The study used purposive sampling to identify Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in

Pennsylvania with high concentrations of SEH, specifically targeting those with at least 5% SEH
enrollment. This resulted in a final sample of forty-four LEAs including forty brick-and-mortar and
four cyber charter schools. A seventeen-question survey, adapted from a validated instrument
created by Dr. Brian Jones (2024), was disseminated using Qualtrics. The survey included
Likert-scale, multi-select responses, and open-ended questions designed to assess participant
demographics, MKVA knowledge, and perceived strategies for supporting SEH. Survey
responses were analyzed in IBM SPSS (Version 29) using descriptive statistics and
non-parametric tests such as Mann-Whitney U-Test (ordinal and interval data) and the Fisher’s
exact test (nominal data) to identify differences between school models. Open-ended responses
were analyzed through a two-cycle coding process (Saldana, 2018; Saldana & Omasta, 2016)
using In Vivo and Pattern coding to identify themes across responses. Graduation rate data,

19
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
serving as a quantitative measure of student achievement, was collected from the SchoolHouse
Connection (2025a) database and used to compare SEH outcomes in cyber and traditional
schools. This comprehensive and intentional research design ensures that the study’s findings
are both data-driven and contextually grounded.
Terms and Definitions

​

For this study, the term Students Experiencing Homelessness will be referenced as SEH

and defined according to the guidelines presented in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (MKVA). As stated by the MKVA homelessness is defined as:
●​ children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of
housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer
parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations; are
living in emergency or transitional shelters; or are abandoned in hospitals;
●​

children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or
private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings;

●​ children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned
buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and
●​

migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this
subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i)
through (iii) (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.).

Throughout this research, the term cyber charter school will be used when referring to
public, tuition-free, fully online schools that deliver instruction remotely via the internet, often
with asynchronous and synchronous components. Students attending cyber charter schools
attend classes and complete assignments virtually from their homes. In Pennsylvania, cyber

20
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
charter schools are considered public schools and operate independently from local school
districts, while still being held accountable to state performance standards and funding laws
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2024).
For the purpose of this research, the term brick-and-mortar refers to traditional, physical
public school buildings where students attend classes in person. This includes both public
school districts and charter schools that operate from a physical facility with face-to-face
instruction, as opposed to virtual learning environments (Education Commission of the States,
2022).
The term local education agency will be referred to as LEA and includes public school
districts, intermediate units, and charter schools that are legally constituted within a state to
provide educational services to students in a defined geographic area. LEAs are responsible for
the administration of public education, including compliance with state and federal laws,
budgeting, and staffing (U.S. Department of Education, 2024).
For the purpose of this study, principals refer to any individual serving in the role of
building-level school administrator responsible for the academic, operational, and leadership
functions of a high school. This includes principals and assistant principals who are responsible
for implementing educational policy, managing staff and resources, supporting student
outcomes, and ensuring compliance with federal mandates such as the MKVA (National
Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2023).
Summary
This study investigates how high school principals perceive and respond to the needs of
students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber versus brick-and-mortar schools across
Pennsylvania. As homelessness among students continues to rise, educational leaders are
increasingly tasked with creating equitable, responsive school environments. Despite legal
protections offered by the McKinney-Vento Act (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.) and Pennsylvania's

21
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Act 1, SEH face continued barriers to academic success, including stigmatization, inflexible
school structures, and inconsistent staff preparedness (Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wagaman et
al., 2022). Principals play a critical role in shaping school responses and ensuring the
implementation of these laws, yet there is a lack of comparative research examining how school
leaders in different educational models such as cyber and brick-and-mortar schools address
these challenges.
This study is grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs. The researcher utilizes a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to
explore the intersection of school type, student homelessness, and principal leadership.
Through the integration of survey data, qualitative responses, and SEH graduation outcomes,
this research aims to illuminate both measurable differences and contextual insights. By
examining the perspectives and strategies of high school principals, this study contributes to a
growing body of literature and offers practical implications for policy and practice. The findings
are intended to inform state-level education leaders and local education agencies (LEAs) as
they refine practices and expand school choice to better serve one of the most vulnerable
student populations. In addition, school leaders can utilize the findings of this study to inform
their practices on identifying and supporting SEH.

22
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
Homelessness among youth is a growing crisis in the United States, affecting over 1.37
million school-aged children, with Pennsylvania alone accounting for more than 40,000 of those
students (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). For these students, school is often more than a
place of learning, but can be a critical source of stability, safety, and support. As educational
settings continue to diversify, particularly with the rise of cyber charter schools, understanding
how different school environments serve students experiencing homelessness (SEH) has
become increasingly essential. Despite the expansion of school choice and the prominence of
cyber education, little is known about how these varied settings impact SEH, particularly from
the perspective of those leading the schools.
The purpose of this study is to examine principals’ perceptions of SEH in cyber charter
schools compared to brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania. While research has
documented the academic challenges and unique needs faced by SEH, there remains a
substantial gap in the literature examining how school leaders perceive and respond to those
needs across different educational models. Much of the existing literature focuses on
elementary populations, school counselors, or legislative frameworks such as the
McKinney-Vento Act and Pennsylvania’s Act 1. However, research on secondary-level students,
particularly within the context of cyber schooling, is sparse. Additionally, while cyber charter
schools have been criticized for lower academic outcomes, the existing data do not clearly
disentangle whether these results stem from the virtual model itself or from the complex
socioeconomic circumstances that lead families to choose cyber education in the first place.

23
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Theoretical Framework
This study is rooted in the Ecological Systems Theory (EST) established by
Bronfenbrenner in 1977. Bronfenbrenner’s theory provides a framework that connects student’s
identity, impact of school setting, school staff influence, and policies written to support students
experiencing homelessness (SEH).
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
In 1977, Bronfenbrenner proposed the socio-ecological model, later becoming the
ecological systems theory, to demonstrate the complexity of human development. Before his
research, psychologists maintained a simplistic view on factors that contributed to a child’s
development. These factors were often simplified to the individual and their immediate
environment. Bronfenbrenner outlined five systems that shape behavior and growth. These
systems are the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. Each
system heavily influences the other systems, and the individual is rooted in the center of all five
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). Figure 1 displays a model of the EST framework.

24
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Figure 1

Note. The five systems of the Ecological Systems Theory. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025, May 6).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology.
(https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html#)
The Individual. The purpose of the ecological system is to demonstrate the dynamic
and evolving influence of several factors that influence the development of individuals. At the
core is the individual and their identity. This includes their age, gender, ethnicity, disabilities,
socio-economic status, lived experiences, and housing status (UNICEF, n.d.). These

25
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
characteristics heavily influence how the individual can grow and develop and will be used to
establish demographics of the samples used in previous studies and provide context for this
study’s data analysis.
The Microsystem and Mesosystem. The system that immediately influences the
individual is the microsystem. The microsystem includes their immediate family, school
environment, friends, and any other persons or environment with which the individual has
immediate and frequent contact. The mesosystem is the system in which the components of the
individual’s microsystem interact. For example, when teachers and parents or guardians discuss
the academic progress of the individual, this is part of the mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977;
Guy-Evans, 2025b). These two systems have a significant amount of influence on the outcomes
of a child, or in the context of this study, the student. When discussing the perception of
administrators on SEH in cyber versus brick-and-mortar schools, the staff, mode of education,
peer interactions, and extra-curricular support play a role in demonstrating the significance of
this study. In addition, the researcher will address the interactions between each and how that
impacts the achievement of SEH.
The Exosystem. The next layer is the exosystem. The exosystem includes extended
family, caregivers’ employers, local organizations, the media, and government policy. These
factors have less of an impact than the microsystem, but still heavily influence the outcomes of
the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). An example of an exosystem is the
legislation discussed later that supports SEH and promotes school choice. In addition, the
researcher will discuss how the media and local organizations play a role in identifying SEH and
the perceptions of others.
The Macrosystem. The fourth layer of Bronfenbrenner’s original theory of ecological
systems is the macrosystem. The macrosystem includes society and cultural norms
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). This includes things such as gender norms,

26
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
parenting styles, valued skills in education, and stereotypes. In this study, the researcher will
discuss how stereotypes and desired skills influence the achievement of SEH.
The Chronosystem. The final stage of the ecological systems is the chronosystem. The
chronosystem addresses the significant changes that impact a person’s environment over time.
This can be things such as major historical events, technological advances, changes to family
dynamics, and more (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Guy-Evans, 2025b). Similarly to the other systems,
this layer will be addressed through the discussion of the expansion of cyber education through
technology and the Covid-19 pandemic as well as the political movements that address the
school funding systems in Pennsylvania.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
The ecological systems theory discusses the numerous factors that influence the
development of a person and how they are interconnected. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (MHN)
takes many of these factors discussed in the EST and establishes a rank from the most
important to least important as seen in Figure 2. According to MHN, the most urgent needs are
physiological. This includes things crucial to survival, that without, would result in immediate
physical harm or even death. These items are things like air, water, food, shelter, sleep, clothing,
and reproduction. The next level of need is safety. Safety includes personal security,
employment, resources, health, and property. Safety items ensure the level of stability required
for the next level. Level three is “love and belonging” and this represents our social needs. Items
such as familial relationships, friendships, and romantic partnerships are part of our
psychological safety. The fourth level is our esteem needs. Our self-worth and achievements are
a part of this level. Finally, is the self-actualization need which is personal growth and
achievement of our highest potential. The levels go from most urgent to least urgent need, but
also from simplest to more complex. While Maslow originally created this framework to indicate

27
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
a sequential order, recent studies suggest various levels can be pursued simultaneously and
are influenced by individuals’ culture (Guy-Evans, 2025a; Yardakul & Arar, 2023).
Figure 2

Note. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025a, March 14). Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#)
Impact of the Theoretical Framework on the Study
Maslow created the Hierarchy of Needs to demonstrate physical and psychological
needs and demonstrate the importance of each item. Bronfenbrenner proposed EST to reframe
psychological research and demonstrate the complexity of environmental factors and how they
influence human development. According to both theories, individuals are complex, require
nurturing, and are influenced by a dynamic network of factors.

28
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
EST has been used to form best practices and frameworks for recognizing the
relationship between multiple factors (Jones, 2024; Wagaman et al., 2022). Specific factors
observed in this study include the individual and their identity as a student experiencing
homelessness, the impact of student needs, educational relationships, deficit thinking,
legislation impacting students, school models, and the role of school leaders. MHN
demonstrates the significance of not only physical and psychological needs, but also
emphasizes that humans cannot begin to develop psychologically until physical needs have
been met (Guy-Evans, 2025a; Yardakul & Arar, 2023)
These theoretical frameworks set the context for the review of current literature, will
guide the analytical process of this study, and inform the data collection focusing on the
perceptions of school leaders on supporting SEH in cyber and brick and mortar schools.
Additionally, many articles cited utilized EST and MHN as the theoretical framework for their
studies. Finally, EST and MHN provide evidence for the significance of this study and help guide
the topics addressed in Chapter 2. Further discussion of these factors and systems will be
provided throughout the remainder of the Literature Review.
The Youth Homelessness Crisis
The Data
According to the SchoolHouse Connection, approximately 1.37 million school aged
children were identified as homeless in the United States in 2023. An additional 446,696
children three and under experienced homelessness. In Pennsylvania alone there are over
40,000 students experiencing homelessness (SEH) and an additional 14,000 preschoolers
(SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). Alarmingly, these numbers have risen significantly over the
last decade, with Pennsylvania experiencing over a 5% increase in SEH since the 2019 school

29
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
year (National Center for Homeless Education, 2023). Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have the
highest rates of SEH across the Commonwealth (Lapp & Shaw-Amoah, 2024; National Center
for Homeless Education, 2023).
Defining and Identifying Homelessness
Identifying SEH can be challenging for a multitude of reasons. Most significantly, there
are the inconsistencies in definitions of homelessness across agencies. It is customary practice
for different governing bodies to have their own definition of homelessness, but schools are
bound by the definition found in the McKinney-Vento Act (Barfield, 2018; Navarro, 2021). The
McKinney Vento Act of 1987 defines “homeless” as any child or youth who lack a “fixed, regular,
and adequate nighttime residence” including:
●​ children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of
housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer
parks, or camping grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations;
are living in emergency or transitional shelters; or are abandoned in hospitals;
●​

children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that is a public or
private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings;

●​ children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned
buildings, substandard housing, bus or train stations, or similar settings; and
●​

migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965) who qualify as homeless for the purposes of this
subtitle because the children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i)
through (iii) (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.).

30
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Where many definitions deviate are those more commonly identified as “doubled up.”
The term “doubled up” describes youth living with others outside of their immediate family, and
many agencies do not include this category in their definition of homelessness (Bowman, 2016;
Navarro, 2021). This is particularly alarming considering that the SchoolHouse Connection
identified 75% of students identified as homeless during the 2022 school year were “doubled
up” (SchoolHouse Connection, 2025a). Similarly, in Pennsylvania, the School District of
Philadelphia reported “doubled up” as the most frequent living arrangement amongst homeless
youth during the 2023 school year (Frisone and Karakus, 2025; SchoolHouse Connection,
2025a).
In addition to the inconsistent definitions of homelessness, identifying students can be
challenging. Concerns over the stereotypes and stigma surrounding homelessness have led to
underreported statistics. Studies on staff and family perception regarding homelessness
indicated parents feared judgment, students were hesitant to share their housing status and
staff maintained stereotypical views of homelessness influenced by the media (Cumming &
Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2021). This is
evident in a study conducted by Cumming and Gloeckner where their survey yielded a
significantly higher number of SEH than the district reported. In the study, the sampled school
district reported twenty-one SEH, but the survey conducted anonymously reported 584 SEH
(Cumming and Gloeckner, 2012). Another study conducted by Cutuli et al. suggested nine
strategies to improve the identification of SEH. They found they were able to identify more SEH
through district level identification, use of an address shared by multiple families, addresses
registered to a shelter, substandard housing, or hotel, certain medical diagnosis, or general
health care notes. In their study, they found these nine strategies yielded anywhere from 34% to
454% more students than traditional identification strategies (Cutuli et al., 2024).

31
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Risk Factors of Homelessness
While students and families can be hesitant to share their housing status with schools,
there are several risk factors or indicators that can help educational establishments improve
their identification and support of SEH. Most schools rely on self-disclosure or staff referrals to
identify these students, but a study conducted by Cutuli et al. provided data to support the
usage of nine indicators of homelessness found in data collected by schools during the
registration process. Their study found routine identification during enrollment, address data,
and health conditions helpful in determining if a student is homeless. Specifically, students that
shared an address with other families with students enrolled in the school, addresses from
shelters, mobile homes, and substandard housing were all more likely to be homeless. They
also found health records provided insight into housing status, specifically in notes left on
student files by the medical provider indicating their patient was experiencing homelessness.
Finally, the researchers concluded attendance rates, and frequent transfers are indicative of
homelessness (Cutuli et al., 2024; Howland, 2017; Miller, 2011). Additional studies further
supported chronic absenteeism as a significant indicator of unstable housing (Howland et al.,
2017; Navarro, 2021). Chronic absenteeism is defined as missing at least 10% of the school
days and according to SchoolHouse Connection (2025a), half of students experienced
homelessness and struggled with frequent absences. These findings indicate the need for more
in-depth analysis of enrollment data to improve identification of SEH and not relying on
self-advocacy or staff observation.
Additional risk factors include socio-economic status such as race and income. The data
indicates that black and brown students are more likely to be identified as homeless than white
students and is more prevalent in urban settings (Havlik & Bryan, 2015; SchoolHouse
Connection, 2025a). Of the students identified as homeless in 2022, 73% were students of color
and 24% were white. In addition, 20% of SEH were identified as needing special education

32
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
services. In Pennsylvania, black and brown students made up over 63% of SEH with only 33%
of white SEH and 28.9% of homeless youth requiring special education services (SchoolHouse
Connection, 2025a). This data is impacted by additional systemic issues leading to black and
brown students being unfairly impacted in all aspects of life.
Academic Outcomes of Homeless Youth
It is undeniable that homelessness significantly impacts students’ ability to be successful
in and out of school. However, it is difficult to discern if the academic achievement of SEH is a
direct result of their housing status or economic stability. A study conducted by Morgan et al.
(2009) concluded students from low socioeconomic status develop academic skills more slowly
than their counterparts from higher socioeconomic status groups. Additional research indicates
that SEH experience lower achievement than their poor, but stably housed peers (Mushonga et
al., 2024; Parrot et al., 2022). For this study's purpose, the researcher will focus on the
academic outcomes of homeless students.
Student Achievement
Homeless youth experience various negative academic outcomes because their
physiological and safety needs, as indicated by MHN, are not being met. Research indicates
students experiencing homelessness (SEH) have lower grades, lower grade point averages
(GPA), and lower scores on standardized and state assessments (Barfield, 2018; Fantuzzo et
al., 2013). In addition, they are more likely to be retained and fail to earn credits in secondary
school (Parrot et al., 2022; Uretsky & Stone, 2016). Uretsky and Stone (2016) also found that
these students are likely to have no scores at all for standardized and state assessments. This
is likely due to the absenteeism, suspensions, and frequent transfers common for this
population (Fantuzzo et al., 2013; Miller, 2011). In addition, homeless youth reported significant

33
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
mental health struggles and battles with depression (Kornbluh et al., 2024; Morgan, 2018) As a
result, students with unstable housing are at risk for dropping out, increased violent behavior,
and criminal activity (Barfield, 2018; Miller, 2011).
Post-Secondary Outcomes
The impact of youth homelessness does not end with high school but continues well into
adulthood. There is a greater impact younger students have when experiencing homelessness
(Fantuzzo et al., 2013; Prinz, 2023). Failure to obtain a diploma from high school has dire
impacts on the success of students into adulthood. In 2012, high school dropouts earned an
average of $9,200 less than those who graduate. That is a difference of $375,000 over their
lifetime. Dropouts are also significantly more likely to be unemployed than high school
graduates (Burrus & Roberts, 2012; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025). With the increased
likelihood of SEH to dropout, their outcomes are similar, if not worse. A diploma itself does not
necessarily equate to more positive outcomes for students that experienced homelessness as a
child. When comparing high school graduates, those that experienced housing instability still
earned less income after graduation than their housed peers. In addition, homeless youth are
more likely to continue criminal activity after high school, including informal methods of income
(Almquist & Walker, 2022; Barfield, 2018). Interestingly, one study found students impacted by
homelessness that enrolled in college earned more immediately after high school than their
housed peers. The researchers hypothesized this is due to students from economically
disadvantaged groups needing to work to pay for classes and housing compared to high
socioeconomic classes’ ability to obtain loans, scholarships, or pay directly for college courses
(Mushonga et al., 2024).

34
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Unique Needs of Homeless Youth
The EST demonstrates how factors such as identity, relationships, policy, society, and
history impact human development. MHN establishes specific physical and psychological needs
and the order in which they must be satisfied with human fulfillment. When applied to
educational outcomes for all students, it provides guidance for educators when considering best
practices for the greatest student outcomes. Many of these factors are heavily influenced by
schools and their staff. When considering SEH, they have a niche set of needs due to the lack
of basic physical needs being met. Many studies have indicated that schools play a crucial role
in meeting these needs. Studies find staff perceived school as the epicenter for physical,
psychological, and emotional needs of students (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et
al., 2022). Another study interviewed homeless youth, and they consistently expressed that they
saw education as the key to achieving housing stability. They also noted that they were only
able to overcome their circumstances with the support of their school (Pescod, 2024).
Student Needs
For students with stable housing and higher socioeconomic status, schools can focus on
curriculum and instruction. However, SEH has a much more complex set of needs. In a study
conducted by Havlik et al., school counselors advocated for survival and healthy development,
emotional connection, academic support, and access to knowledge of services when supporting
homeless youth. Participants indicated they required support obtaining food, clothing, safe
shelter, clean uniforms, and stable income avenues. They also needed a supportive school
environment, strong relationships with peers, consistent parental involvement, mental health
counseling, support managing stress, and guidance on setting goals. Academically, counselors
said SEH needed help securing locations for studying, obtaining school supplies, and college
and career counseling. Finally, they found these students needed knowledge of services

35
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
accessible to them. This included transportation information, general knowledge of services,
connections with shelters and residential options, and information on the McKinney-Vento Act
(Havlik et al., 2014). The physical needs such as clothing and mental health support were
reiterated by Morgan in 2018 but added personal hygiene and access to healthcare. Cutuli and
Herbers (2019) further emphasized the need for immediate rehousing. While these studies
focused on staff perceptions of student needs when experiencing homelessness, a study
conducted by Kornbluh et al. (2024) interviewed SEH. Participants also indicated mental health
support and access to housing programs to be high on their needs list. Students also expressed
that while their physical and emotional needs often go unmet, they excelled in self-awareness
(Ferguson & Francis, 2024) and resilience (Hatch et al., 2022). The needs expressed by
students and staff are directly connected to MHN. According to MHN, physiological needs such
as food, shelter, and safety needs such as employment and property, are urgent needs and
when those needs are unsatisfactorily met, students may struggle to meet higher levels such as
self-actualization (Guy-Evans, 2025a).
Importance of Relationships
One of the most consistent themes across literature is the significance of strong
relationships. MHN and the EST emphasize the need for strong emotional connection, parental
support, peer relationships, mentorship, and positive school environments. This is evidenced by
the Microsystem of the EST and the “love and belonging” found in MHN (Guy-Evans, 2025a;
Guy-Evans, 2025b). This is further supported by numerous studies focusing on supporting SEH.
Homeless youth communicated the top three reasons for being able to move beyond their
circumstances was due to their close friends, caring teachers, and churches. All three provided
emotional support, academic guidance, potentially meeting housing needs, or providing an
environment for studying (Edwards, 2019). School counselors have also emphasized the
significance of having at least one strong connection with a staff member or trusted adult at

36
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
school (Havlik et al., 2024). This was further supported by additional studies emphasizing the
need for effective communication between the school and parents of SEH (Lafavor et al., 2020).
These relationships most significantly relate to the microsystem and mesosystem of the EST
and social needs in MHN.
Additional Best Practices
Parents, counselors, teachers, and students impacted by homelessness also advocated
for other supports to help students overcome unstable housing. The research emphasized the
role of the school counselor. Most prevalent was their role in establishing networks and
resources with external organizations and other counselors to meet the physical, psychological,
and emotional needs of homeless youth (Edwards, 2023; Havlik, 2015). In addition, school
counselors discussed wrap-around services, mental health counseling, and college and career
counseling (Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Havlik et al., 2024). Ultimately, counselors served as a
liaison or bridge between schools, families, and students (Harris, 2012; Murphy & Tobin, 2012).
This is supported by the significance of the Mesosystem established in the EST where members
of the individual’s immediate environment, such as counselors and parents as part of the
Microsystem, interact with local governments and agencies. This need is also crucial to the
higher levels of self-actualization in the MHN where students are provided with the tools and
skills to plan for a future and improve their socioeconomic status.
Impact of Deficit Thinking
As previously discussed, there is a significant stigma associated with homelessness
(Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al.,
2021). This contributes to stereotypes and deficit thinking, particularly with SEH. Deficit thinking
is a symptom of systemic oppression and is characterized as rationalization or even blaming a

37
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
person or demographic for specific outcomes because of their circumstances (Murphy & Tobin,
2012; Patton Davis & Museus, 2019). In the context of this study, deficit thinking would be the
achievement and outcomes of SEH and the persistence of expectations, or lack thereof, that
many staff have for these students. Unfortunately, SEH has discussed a lack of school quality.
While students have expressed the overwhelmingly positive impact of positive relationships,
negative relationships with school staff have been insurmountable. One theme of the current
literature indicates teachers failing to provide appropriate rigor in classes, lack of response or
support from teachers, punitive approaches to punish poor academics or attendance, and
general lack of understanding when it came to housing status (Ferguson & Francis, 2024;
Murphy & Tobin, 2012). This is also evident in parents’ perceptions of their children compared to
staff perceptions. A study conducted in 2020 by Lefavor et al. compared the perceptions of
parents experiencing homelessness and staff. They found that parents believed their children
were engaged in their schooling and competence, but teachers believed otherwise. Rather,
teachers expressed concerns over low academic achievement for homeless students (Lafavor
et al., 2020).
Rottermond and Regan (2025) suggest five practices to overcome deficit thinking. First,
it is important for staff to conduct an appraisal of current beliefs. Part of being an effective
educator is believing all students can learn. Educators must be honest about their perceptions,
beliefs, and implicit biases to assess if they believe all students can learn and ensure their
actions match their thoughts. The next strategy is to ensure the use of a variety of data
resources when assessing the current progress of students and supporting their academic
growth (Rottermond & Regan, 2025). Standardized assessments are historically biased in favor
of white students and can be unfair measurements of achievement for students of color (Riebe,
2024; Rosales & Walker, 2021). As a result, it is important to use a variety of data collection
tools to ensure a more reliable picture of current academic progress. In addition to data

38
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
collection, the third practice suggested is conducting a survey of a student’s strengths and
including them in setting goals. This is also consistent with the EST and MHN. The fourth
strategy is to use asset-based language and thinking. This includes practices such as avoiding
the use of phrases such as “homeless kids” or “SpEd kids.” Instead, language such as “students
with IEPs” or “students experiencing homelessness” should be used. In addition, it is important
to view differences between students as a benefit to growth and a launching point rather than
something that needs to be “fixed” or overcome. The final suggested practice is to implement
high quality and grade level instruction. Too often teachers fall into the trap of saying things like
“they just aren’t there” when a student is underperforming. Similarly to the opportunity myth,
staff will then “dumb down” the instruction to meet students where they are. This limits students’
opportunity for growth and perpetuates the notion that students’ ability to succeed is linked to
their socioeconomic status (Rottermond & Regan, 2025). The strategies suggested by
Rottermond and Regan (2025) are consistent with studies conducted by Murphy and Tobin
(2012) and Patton and Museus (2019).
The five practices suggested by Rottermond and Regan are aligned with the EST and
MHN in which they discuss the psychological and emotional needs of students. These practices
ensure the Microsystem is functioning to its fullest potential while ensuring the physiological and
safety needs of students are being met. However, preconceived notions about student
achievement, perceptions of SEH, and social norms and stigma are prevalent within the
Macrosystem of EST and can significantly impact the development of a person. Ensuring
instructional rigor and a positive school environment is part of being culturally responsive, but
when students are academically challenged and included in the goal setting process, they begin
to satisfy the esteem and self-actualization stages of MHN (Guy-Evans, 2025a).

39
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Policy to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness
In 1987, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (MKVA) was enacted to provide
support for students experiencing homelessness (SEH) and ensure they have equal access to
free and appropriate public education. MKVA has been amended numerous times in compliance
with Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). In 2022, Pennsylvania added additional legislation
under Act 1 to further support students experiencing educational instability due to factors such
as homelessness. Act 1 was written to further support on-time graduation for these students. As
indicated by EST, policies such as MKVA and Pennsylvania’s Act 1 are part of the Macrosystem
and heavily influence the development of a person (Guy-Evans, 2025b).
The Requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act
The McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) ensures equal access to education for SEH. As
previously discussed, “homeless” is defined as students lacking “fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence, including those who are sharing the housing of others due to loss of
housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason’ staying in motels, trailer parks, or camp
grounds due to the lack of an adequate alternative; staying in shelters or transitional housing; or
sleeping in cars, parks, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, or similar settings” 42
U.S.C. §11434a(2). They can also be “unaccompanied youth” which includes those living
separately from their parent or guardian 42 U.S.C. 11434a (6). Within the legislation, there are
several requirements set forth for the state educational agency (SEA) and local education
agency (LEA). The SEA must designate a state coordinator responsible for responding to
inquiries from parents and unaccompanied youth, provide professional development (PD) for
liaisons, and monitor and enforce MKVA at LEAs. LEAs must designate a liaison that is
responsible for identifying SEH, removing barriers from enrollment, staying up to date on the
regulations, providing PD to LEA staff, supporting students’ access to college financial aid,

40
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
connecting them to local organizations and services, and ensuring distribution of information on
MKVA. Additional steps LEAs must take include immediate enrollment without documentation
and ensuring continuation of education when students are transitioning between residencies
(SchoolHouse Connection, 2025b).
Act 1 of Pennsylvania
MKVA ensures SEH can attend school, but Pennsylvania determined this policy was not
enough to support these students. As a result, in 2022 the General Assembly of Pennsylvania
enacted Act 1 of 2022. This legislation's purpose was to further remove education and
graduation barriers for students experiencing educational instability due to homelessness,
adjudication, foster care, and court-related placements. The guidance includes the identification
of these students, assigning a point of contact, supporting record transfers, ensuring proper
integration into school activities, and developing a graduation plan for students in grades nine to
twelve. This also provides schools with the flexibility to award partial or complete credit for
courses from previous schools or waiving specific graduation requirements. If a student is still
unable to graduate, the school can apply on behalf of the students experiencing educational
instability to receive a diploma from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. This policy
piggybacks MKVA to further support high school graduation for these students, especially those
experiencing homelessness (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2025a).
Barriers to Implementation
While MKVA and Act 1 were established to ensure equal access to education for SEH
and educational instability, there are many barriers to implementation. Principals in New York
City expressed frustration over the need to track students between schools and districts and the
lack of funding to implement the requirements of MKVA. Many leaders expressed a desire for

41
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
MKVA status to be available via academic records or within district databases (Navarro, 2021).
In addition, school staff expressed struggles to support SEH because their housing status was
considered confidential information and often not shared with staff (Prinz, 2023). Other issues
raised by school staff included a lack of knowing procedures for identifying and supporting
homeless students, general inadequacy, and indicating little to no PD on MKVA (Von Dohlen et
al., 2019; Wagaman et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2019). Counselors specifically referenced feeling
more knowledgeable than teaching staff on policy, support, and student needs but reported not
knowing the state coordinator or their role (Havliks & Bryan, 2015).
In the researcher's experience, a consistent barrier between MKVA and Act 1 of
Pennsylvania is the lack of educational records for most SEH. To develop a graduation plan for
students in high school, a realistic picture of courses taken and grades received is crucial.
However, the lack of academic records requires schools to waive many credits, which raises
ethical concerns around awarding a diploma without educational services.
Overcoming Barriers of Implementation
While there are several challenges to implementing MKVA and Act 1, there are several
strategies to overcome or limit the barriers. First, researchers suggest using counselors’
knowledge and expertise to support staff (Havliks & Bryan, 2015). More specifically, their
connections with community organizations can be leveraged to meet the needs of students
(Havlik & Bryan, 2015; Havlik et al., 2024; Miller, 2018). Additional research emphasized overall
improvement in communication between counselors, liaisons, school leaders, families, and
sending schools (Navarro, 2021; Prinz, 2023; Harris, 2012). Most consistently, researchers
advocated for improved professional development and staff training (Harris, 2012; Von Dohlen
et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2019). Finally, researchers discussed the importance of effective

42
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
leaders and principals in ensuring compliance, communication, and training (Harris, 2012;
Jones, 2024). The role of an effective leader will be discussed thoroughly in a later section.
School Choice Matters
While policies such as MKVA and Pennsylvania’s Act 1 seek to remove barriers to
education for SEH, they do not address educational models. As a result, schools across
Pennsylvania vary in strategies and systems built to meet the needs of their students. SEH have
a unique set of needs, requires more intense interventions, and seeks flexibility (Lafavor, et al.,
2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). Schools serve as a major component of the
Microsystem in EST and support students in meeting their physiological and safety needs found
in MHN. For many families, particularly those facing instability, the landscape of school choice
becomes a critical factor in finding an environment that can meet their unique needs.
Educational Philosophy
Educational pluralism is a structure in which the government values, funds, and
regulates various schools. This includes a focus on different religions, models, backgrounds,
and values (JHU School of Education, 2023). This model is common in democratic societies
and is driven by the desires and needs of taxpayers. The United States utilizes school choice to
establish pluralism, though it is debatable as to the effectiveness of this model. School choice is
defined as “any policy that allows families to take their children’s education dollars to the
approved education provider for their choosing- be it traditional public schools, public charter
schools, private schools, virtual learning, or home schooling” (American Federation for Children,
2023).
Ashley Rogers Berner is a strong advocate for educational pluralism and addresses it at
length in her book Educational Pluralism and Democracy: How to Handle Indoctrination,

43
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Promote Exposure, and Rebuild America's Schools. She outlines five arguments for a greater
variety of schooling options. Her first argument is that for families to effectively have school
choice, they must be able to access all the options. In other words, “financial means should not
determine whether or not a child has educational options.” Berner’s second argument is that
“education cannot be neutral with respect to values” (2024, p. 18). The reality is that no school
can truly be neutral. The third argument is that education is the key to the common good. This
means student achievement is linked to the betterment of our society. The fourth argument is
that “education belongs within civil society” (2024, p. 19). In other words, what is taught belongs
to those that fund it. Finally, argument five states pluralism leads to student success because
they can learn best in a community that represents who they are. True school choice and
educational pluralism can be an avenue for culturally responsive practice. Pluralist systems
ensure a core curriculum that is rigorous while leaving space for additional instruction or
methods aligned to the values of the families the school serves. In addition, the current value of
a high school diploma is drastically different from other democratic states. A true school choice
would ensure a high school diploma means something. Part of this is also preparing college
ready students (Berner, 2024).
Schooling Options in Pennsylvania
In the state of Pennsylvania, there are several options from which families may select.
According to PaFEC (2025), there are public cyber charter schools, traditional public, public
magnet schools, public charter schools, private schools, home schools, and microschools. The
different options and their location can be found in Figure 3. Public cyber charter schools are
monitored and approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, publicly funded, and
operate virtually. Traditional public schools and public charter schools are both brick-and-mortar
schools, publicly funded, and operated by the local chartering district. However, charter schools
have significantly more flexibility in their model and curriculum. Magnet schools are an offshoot

44
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
of public schools and focus on specialized curriculum, are publicly funded, and managed by the
LEA. The most common example of a Magnet school in Pennsylvania is a Career and Technical
Education (CTE) school. Homeschooling and microschools are not publicly funded and are run
by parents of students. Academic progress is reviewed annually by the state to ensure
compliance, but families have flexibility in what content is taught. Similarly, microschools are
groups of homeschooled students that can be taught in groups or outsourced instructors and
are monitored and funded in the same way as homeschooled students. Finally, private schools
are tuition based and have immense flexibility in the content they teach. They are specialized in
mode and curriculum (PaFEC, 2025).

45
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Figure 3

Note. Guide to Choosing an Education Model for Your Child. PaFEC. (2025). Types of school
choice programs. PaFEC. https://paedchoice.org/types-of-school-choice-programs/
Cyber Charter Schools Versus Brick-And-Mortar Schools
As indicated in the EST, schools play a crucial role in the development of individuals
(Guy-Evans, 2025b) and communities rely on their support in meeting basic needs (Lafavor, et
al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al., 2022). This study focuses on the achievement of
students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in brick-and-mortar schools compared to cyber

46
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
charter schools to assess which model more effectively meets the needs of this population. To
do this effectively, it is important to understand the current context of these models in the state
of Pennsylvania. In the last five years, enrollment in cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania has
increased 500% (Cordes, 2025). As a result, a spotlight has been shown on their enrollment
trends, academic struggles, and funding concerns. Within the context of school choice and
serving SEH, it is important to first discuss how cyber charter schools differ from
brick-and-mortar schools. In addition, it is important to emphasize that school choice should be
utilized to select the model that best meets the needs of students and their families. That means
brick-and-mortar schools may be better for one type of learner, while cyber charter schools are
better for another.
Different Models
There are fourteen cyber charter schools, 500 public school districts with several
brick-and-mortar schools, and an additional 160 brick-and-mortar charter schools in the state of
Pennsylvania (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2025b). For this study, the researcher will
combine public brick-and-mortar schools and brick-and-mortar charter schools as
“brick-and-mortar schools.” Brick-and-mortar schools follow traditional bell schedules, are bound
by state curriculum requirements, and provide instruction in person. Cyber charter schools offer
either synchronous, asynchronous, or hybrid instruction via virtual platforms where students
take classes from their homes. They meet with their teachers virtually and rely heavily on a
variety of virtual platforms to receive their education. While their mode of instruction differs from
brick-and-mortar schools, they are still required to follow the state requirements of instruction
including standards and state assessments (Nespor, 2019).
Of the fourteen cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Charter Academy
is the largest serving 23,593 students across the state. According to their website, they boast of

47
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
providing an individualized education to meet the needs of each student through a variety of
platforms, online classes, and supporting students beyond high school. They emphasize their
program is meant to improve access to a quality education for students “in remote locations,
unsafe neighborhoods or other situations where challenges like low enrollments make the
traditional school model impractical (CCA, 2025)”. They also advertise a flexible learning
environment, student-centered approach, personalized academic curriculum, family and student
resources, and student life opportunities as the benefit of online education not only for their
platform, but other cyber charter schools (CCA, 2025). These benefits are stated across
websites for other cyber charter schools in the state such as Pennsylvania Cyber Charter
School, Reach Cyber Charter School, Agora Cyber Charter School, and Insight PA Cyber
Charter School. In addition, other schools promote high quality instruction and caring teachers
as part of their model (PACyber, 2025).
Academic Achievement & Student Outcomes
While cyber charter schools across the state advertise their flexible learning models and
meet the needs of students while ensuring social and emotional needs of students are not
jeopardized, several studies have raised concerns over the academic outcomes of students that
attend these schools. According to Cordes (2024), students attending cyber charter schools
beginning in 9th grade are 9.5% less likely to graduate, 16.8% less likely to attend college, and
15.2% less likely to continue college beyond their first semester. In addition, they are more likely
to repeat a grade and have lower standardized test scores (Cordes, 2024). The lower academic
achievement was supported by additional studies such as Kingsbury et al. (2022) and Ulum
(2022). Both studies found students performed worse academically in cyber charter schools
compared to brick-and-mortar schools.

48
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
While the lower academic achievement of students attending cyber charter schools
compared to brick-and-mortar schools is well established in the research, not all outcomes are
negative. Cordes (2024) found students attending cyber charter schools were less likely to be
chronically absent. Cordes (2024) also expressed concern that the number of years of
enrollment had no impact on outcomes of cyber charter schools but did improve outcomes of
students enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools. As a result, data comparing the two models
should eliminate any other variables to ensure the conclusions are supported by the data, and
previous studies that failed to do that should be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, Ulum
(2022) found students attending cyber charter schools have stronger “21st century skills”
compared to brick-and-mortar schools such as their ability to use technology.
Kingsbury et al. (2022) presented unique data suggesting lower academic achievement
of students attending cyber charter schools may not be a result of the education and services
received in a cyber charter school, but rather an outcome of their circumstances. The study
compared student achievement of students before, during, and after the Covid-19 pandemic.
Their data identified trends in enrollment and achievement before, during, and after the
pandemic. First, they found enrollment of cyber charter schools increased during the pandemic
because parents were seeking a more stable remote experience during the pandemic. However,
once brick-and-mortar schools resumed in person instruction, these students returned to
brick-and-mortar schools. Second, during the pandemic, cyber charter schools saw an
improvement in overall student achievement but then decreased again after the pandemic.
Kingsbury et al. (2022) suggest this is due to the general lower achievement of students that
seek cyber charter schools prior and after the pandemic as a result of their already poor
achievement in brick-and-mortar schools and the growth they observed during the pandemic
was the enrollment trends of students doing academically well in brick-and-mortar schools prior
to the pandemic. They go on to explain the decrease in achievement after initial growth may be

49
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
attributed to those students returning to brick-and-mortar platforms once schools returned to in
person instruction (Kingsbury et al., 2022).
Bradley-Dorsey et al. (2022) proposed that improving student outcomes and academic
performance in cyber charter schools can be achieved by fostering positive peer and
student-teacher interactions, which can lead to higher proficiency in state assessments for math
and reading. They also emphasized that while flexibility is often a reason for students and
families to select cyber charter schools, those attending synchronous classes fared better than
those asynchronously. In addition, just as it is evident in brick-and-mortar schools, their data
supported an inverse relationship between negative peer interactions and student outcomes
and a positive relationship between teacher-student interactions during synchronous lessons
and student outcomes (Bradley-Dorsey et al., 2022). Meeting the social needs of students is
supported by MHN level of belonging (Guy-Evans, 2025a).
Cyber Learner Profile & Enrollment Factors ​

In addition to achievement, studies have also investigated enrollment trends of students
in cyber charter schools and the type of learner that performs well. Rice (2006) stated “...the
effectiveness of distance education appears to have more to do with who is teaching, who is
learning, and how that learning is accomplished, and less to do with the medium” (p. 440). Rice
found, like any schooling model, some students are successful in virtual schools, and some are
not, just as they would be in a traditional school setting. In Rice’s (2006) literature review, they
identified three categories of success for virtual learners. First, learner characteristics such as
learning style, self-esteem, autonomy, and responsibility all play a role in whether a student is
successful in a virtual environment or not. In addition, cyber students sought convenience,
flexible scheduling, credit recovery opportunities, accelerated learning opportunities, conflict
avoidance, and a greater variety of course offerings as reasons for enrolling in cyber charter

50
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
schools. This data implies many students experienced inaccessibility to brick-and-mortar
schools as well as already falling behind in brick-and-mortar models (Rice, 2006). The second
category of success Rice (2006) identified was the support cyber charter schools offered to
battle the isolation and socialization barriers students experience in virtual platforms. This
includes instructional support from teachers, technical support when navigating platforms, an
increased focus on promoting a sense of community, and creating an inclusive classroom
environment (Rice, 2006). Finally, “affective learning domains” are the third category of success
for virtual students. Rice (2006) found cyber charter schools invest many resources into
ensuring the social needs of students are met. This includes learner interactions with the
material, teachers, and peers. In addition, strategies such as consistent communication to
combat decreased student achievement, isolation, and increased likelihood of cyber students
dropping out.
Rice’s findings are supported by several studies. Wolfinger (2016) conducted interviews,
in-home observations of students, and teacher focus groups to study learner characteristics,
academic supports and social supports middle school students received in a virtual school.
They identified learners as being driven, independent learners, diligent, self-aware, confident,
communicative, engaged, cooperative, and computer literate. They found the participants
discussed synchronous instruction, increased teacher responsiveness, routine, attentiveness,
general assistance from staff, flexibility, educational videos, and tech support as factors
contributing to student and guardian satisfaction. The participants also discussed synchronous
peer interaction, extracurricular activities, and school-sponsored events as socialization
opportunities for students (Wolfinger, 2016). Lesisko and Sraiheen (2016) reiterated many of
these characteristics and motivation factors for parents enrolling their students in cyber charter
schools. They found students appreciated the flexibility of a virtual program and reported
needing that option because of health-related conditions or conflicts with other students at their

51
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
previous brick-and-mortar school. Students also said they felt they had fewer distractions in a
cyber charter school but disliked the amount of work they had to dedicate to their studies
(Lesisko & Sraiheen, 2016).
While student feedback is valuable and their inclusion in deciding what school best
meets their needs, parents and guardians decide where to enroll their student (Lee & Figueroa,
2012). Lee and Figueroa (2012) also emphasized the importance of parental involvement and
support as a crucial factor in student success. Bradley-Dorsey (2022) reported parents that
enrolled their students in cyber charter schools had previous negative interactions with teachers
at previous brick-and-mortar schools and this heavily influenced their decision to withdraw them
and enroll in a virtual program. In addition, they felt teachers were more responsive, offered
more support for their students, and their students received more opportunities to engage an
individualized support in the virtual school compared to a brick-and-mortar school
(Bradley-Dorsey, 2022)
As previously discussed, students experiencing homelessness struggle to meet their
physical needs, are highly mobile, seek rich relationships, and look to schools to help meet
these needs (Kornbluh et al., 2024; Edwards, 2019; Havlik et al., 2024). The schools’ role is
evident in the Microsystem of EST and the ability to choose schools is heavily influenced by
government policy as part of the Macrosystem (Guy-Evans, 2025b). Cyber charter schools’
aptitude for providing a supportive and flexible learning environment (Lesisko & Sraiheen, 2016;
Wolfinger, 2016) and meeting physiological, safety, and belonging needs outlined in MHN
makes their model an attractive choice for SEH (Guy-Evans, 2025a).

52
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Funding Controversy
School funding is part of the Macrosystem of EST and influences the development of
students. As a result, it is important to analyze how the funding structure of schools in
Pennsylvania impacts school choice. Part of the discussion surrounding the effectiveness of
cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania is funding. In 2023, the Commonwealth Court deemed
the Pennsylvania school funding system unconstitutional (ELC, 2025). Since their ruling, the
funding system, including how charter schools and cyber charter schools receive their funds,
has been scrutinized. Up until this ruling, most funds provided to school districts came directly
from the property taxes residents pay in each municipality (Carr-Chellman & Marsh, 2009). In
2009, Forest Area School District spent the most in Pennsylvania with approximately
$13,668.53 per pupil while Reading School District spent the least at $5380.30 per pupil. Due to
the funding system, wealthier districts can provide a better education to their students compared
to less wealthy districts such as Reading, PA. Furthermore, a study conducted by Kelly &
Maselli (2023) found the Pennsylvania finance policies disproportionately impacted black and
brown students. They stated “First, we find that districts with the highest concentrations of Black
and Latinx students are receiving millions, and in some cases billions, of dollars less in funding
than they would if lawmakers used current formulas” (Kelly & Maselli, 2023, p. 528).
Charter schools receive 80% of the per-pupil expenditure from the district in which the
student resides. The state of Pennsylvania then reimburses the local school district anywhere
from 30 to 45% of this cost (Carr-Chellman & Marsh, 2009). However, concerns have been
raised on whether cyber charter schools need as much funding as brick-and-mortar schools.
Districts in rural regions of the state have been disproportionately impacted by cyber charter
schools than urban districts due to the increased likelihood of students in rural regions enrolling
in cyber charter schools. The enrollment disparities are likely due to the increase in schooling
options in urban settings within a closer proximity than in rural areas. As a result, rural school

53
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
districts have struggled to meet their students' needs. In addition, school districts in rural
municipalities tend to be a major employer of the region, meaning the funding gap has led to not
only an inability to meet the needs of students and fewer students, but a significant economic
decline for these regions (Mann et al., 2016).
As part of Governor Shapiro’s attempt to resolve these funding issues, the proposed
spending on cyber charter schools is to decrease the amount of funding a cyber charter school
receives from the sending LEA (Scolforo, 2025). This is not a recent trend and attempts to
reform cyber funding have happened in other states such as Ohio and Georgia. Budget cuts
targeting cyber charter schools in those states have resulted in financial struggles or even
failure for more cyber charter schools to open (Kingsbury, 2021). The bill that recently passed by
the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania was sponsored by the Democratic party and
seeks to limit the per-pupil for students attending cyber charter schools to $8,000. The
Democratic party, supported by Governor Shapiro, argued this would help school districts retain
more funding from taxpayers (Scolforo, 2025). While this would not benefit any school district
that spends less than $10,000 per pupil, it would reduce costs for 484 of the 500 school districts
in Pennsylvania. In 2024, Canon-McMillan School District spent per student at $10,053 while
Bryn Athyn School District spent $44,005 per student (Walker, 2025). This means, this bill would
decrease per-student funding for cyber charter schools anywhere from $424 to $27,204 per
pupil depending on the residence of students.
While public school districts support this bill, cyber charter schools have continuously
pushed back. However, the lack of transparency around exactly how much it costs cyber charter
schools to serve students has fueled the fire. Sternberg (2006) found that the start-up costs for
cyber charter schools were significant but spent less time on brick-and-mortar schools.
However, cyber charter schools argue they may not have to maintain buildings, but they are still
responsible for state and federal mandates, pay more for curriculum and software, and supply

54
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
students with technology. A more recent study found cyber charter schools were more cost
effective, meaning they required less funding. This, and the result of current funding practices,
led to many public districts opening their own virtual schools to combat concerns over cyber
funding (Kingsbury, 2021).
The Role of School Leaders
Schools and their staff are rooted in the Microsystem of EST and play a crucial role in
the development and achievement of students (Guy-Evans, 2025b). More specifically, several
studies investigated the impact of school principals on student achievement. In 2004, Leithwood
et al. conducted a study in partnership with the Wallace Foundation to evaluate the impact
school leaders had on student learning. In their study, they determined teachers impacted
student learning the most, but second were principals. They went on to outline the “basics of
school leadership.” The first practice is setting directions in which the school principal supports
the school in developing a shared purpose and vision. The second practice is developing
people. This means supporting school staff in being the best educators they can be. The third
strategy is redesigning the organization, which is described as strengthening school culture to
facilitate the work of the school and ensuring a level of “malleability” in routines and structures
(Leithwood et al., 2004). These practices can be used to directly impact SEH. Principals have a
responsibility to create a shared vision that includes meeting the needs of all students, including
groups such as SEH and cultivate the right staff, professional development, and school systems
to support the vision.
Within the context of supporting SEH, studies emphasize the role of an effective
principal. Harris (2012) found school staff perceived school leadership as the most crucial factor
in being able to support SEH. Studies mentioned previously addressed the concerns of staff
feeling unprepared and inadequate in supporting SEH (Wagaman et al., 2022; Havliks & Bryan,

55
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
2015). In addition, many barriers to implementing MKVA include the stigma around
homelessness and how it leads to deficit thinking (Ferguson & Francis, 2024). Combining
Leithwood et al.’s study of effective principals and the barriers that exist in supporting SEH, it is
evident that Principals play a crucial role. One of the suggested strategies for principals to
combat these challenges is to provide staff with effective PD, establish systems, and
communicate these policies with staff (Von Dohlen et al., 2019).
Jones (2024) identified four themes that are present in Principals and their role in
supporting SEH: understanding and implementation of MKVA, barriers to implementation,
support systems and strategies, and emotional and social impact of homelessness on students.
First, they found that Principals had a mixed level of understanding of MKVA and it directly
influenced how the school implemented it. Leaders also played a crucial role in advocating for
student and staff needs in implementing MKVA. Principals advocated for more training and
awareness, improved documentation, overcoming family distrust, and lack of resources. When
asked how they overcame these issues in their school, they said they implemented
school-based programs, provided items to meet physical needs such as school supplies and
uniforms, established community partnerships, developed training to ensure staff were prepared
to meet the needs of SEH, and developed creative ways to support students. The fourth and
final themes focused on building strong relationships with students, reducing stigma, and
creating safe spaces in the school. All leaders reported on the growth and resilience of students
demonstrated as an outcome (Jones, 2024).
It is evident that there are numerous barriers and concerns surrounding supporting SEH.
This is true for students, staff, and families. Effective leaders can recognize these gaps and
develop a strategy to ensure SEH receive a complete education.

56
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
The Need for Further Research
This study analyzes principals’ perceptions of students experiencing homelessness
(SEH) in cyber–School Compared to brick-and-mortar schools. Articles addressing SEH, the
impact of effective principals, and the current context of cyber versus brick-and-mortar schools
set the foundation for this study. However, significant gaps remain. First, while student
achievement in cyber charter schools is well established, it is important to note there is limited
data comparing the academic performance of students who have attended both platforms. As a
result, many conclusions drawn about the lower academic achievement of cyber students are
unclear if it is a result of the setting or a result of the circumstances leading to their need to
attend cyber charter schools. In addition, there is a large gap in research on SEH. The articles
focused on strategies and perceptions of school counselors and the identification and support in
primary school. Limited research exists addressing the unique challenges of students in
secondary school. In addition, this study focuses on the perceptions of principals at high school
level which will help address the gap in the current research that focuses on primary students.
Summary
Students experiencing homelessness (SEH) experience significant barriers in meeting
the most basic needs. This impacts their ability to achieve in schools. Cyber charter schools
may be the key to ensuring equal access to education, but the current political context of
Pennsylvania seeks to significantly decrease their funding. While increased monitoring of
student achievement and how spending occurs in cyber charter schools may be prudent, school
choice remains the right of students and families. ​
SEH faces a wide array of academic, emotional, and structural challenges that
significantly hinder their educational success. These challenges are compounded by

57
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
inconsistent identification practices, systemic inequities, and a lack of comprehensive support
services, particularly in secondary education. While frameworks such as Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Systems Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs provide a foundational
understanding of the interconnected variables affecting SEH, existing studies primarily
emphasize counselor perspectives, elementary contexts, or general policy implementation.
There remains a notable gap in research addressing how these challenges manifest differently
within cyber and brick-and-mortar settings, especially through the lens of educational leaders.
This study aims to address that gap by examining the perceptions of high school
principals who are uniquely positioned to influence how schools identify, support, and respond to
the needs of students experiencing homelessness. As cyber education continues to grow in
popularity and accessibility, it is vital to understand how this model compares to traditional
schooling in terms of student support, academic outcomes, and relationship-building;
particularly for vulnerable populations. The complexity of this topic lies in the intersection of
student needs, school structures, and policy implementation. By centering principal
perspectives, this research will offer practical insights and inform policy, training, and practices
that can better serve homeless students across diverse educational environments.

58
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Chapter 3: Research Method

​

This chapter explains the methods and procedures used in this mixed-methods study.

Detailed descriptions of the research questions, design, sample, instrumentation methods, and
data collection and analysis are presented below.
Research Questions and Hypotheses

​

The purpose of this study is to use aspects of quantitative and qualitative research to

create a mixed-methods approach to assess the perceptions of principals of SEH in
brick-and-mortar versus cyber high schools and compare them to the actual achievement of
SEH in each model. The goal is to inform policy for schools across Pennsylvania in support of
school choice, particularly within the current political debate of cyber charter schools. The
methodology, research design, sample, data collection, and analysis are rooted in three
research questions. Research questions two and three are also accompanied by a null
hypothesis (H0) and an alternative hypothesis (H1). A null hypothesis states there is no
relationship between variables and an alternative hypothesis states there is a relationship
between variables when conducting inferential statistical analysis. For simplicity, the first
population (μ1) is “cyber”, and the second population (μ2) is “brick-and-mortar”. The research
questions and corresponding hypotheses are listed below:
RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber
charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing
homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?

59
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools
regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?
H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​
schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar
H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​
schools.
H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar
RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in
brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High
Schools?
H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools
​

versus brick-and-mortar schools.

​

H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar

H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools ​
versus brick-and-mortar schools.

​

H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar

60
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Research Design
This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, in which quantitative
and qualitative data were collected concurrently, analyzed independently, and then integrated to
provide a comprehensive understanding of principals’ perceptions and their relationship to
student achievement outcomes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this design, the mode of
education (cyber or brick-and-mortar) served as the independent variable, while principals’
strategies, perceptions, and the achievement outcomes of students experiencing homelessness
(SEH) were the dependent variables. Quantitative data included graduation rates of SEH,
demographic information, Likert-scale survey responses, and multi-select responses, while
qualitative data consisted of open-ended responses from participating principals and assistant
principals.
The convergent parallel approach was selected over other mixed-methods design
because it allowed both data types to be collected and analyzed within the same phase of the
study, enabling a more immediate and integrated interpretation of findings. Unlike an
explanatory sequential design, which prioritizes quantitative data collection and uses qualitative
data to explain results, or an exploratory sequential design, which begins with qualitative data to
inform subsequent quantitative measures, the convergent parallel design equally emphasizes
both data types (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This approach was most appropriate for this
study’s purpose of capturing both measurable trends (e.g., graduation rates and survey
responses) and the nuanced perceptions and strategies principals use to support SEH.
Furthermore, this design leverages the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative
methods while minimizing their individual limitations. Quantitative data identified trends in
graduation rates, demographics, and survey responses, whereas qualitative data provided
deeper insights into the reasoning, strategies, and perceptions underlying those trends.

61
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Integrating these datasets yielded a more nuanced and comprehensive analysis of principals’
experiences supporting SEH across both school models (Shahbaz, 2021).
Finally, the convergent parallel mixed-methods design is also well suited to address the
study’s three research questions. RQ1 and RQ2 explore principals’ perceptions and the unique
strategies implemented to support SEH, generating both qualitative and quantitative data
through open-ended, multi-select responses and Likert-scale survey items. RQ3 examines
graduation rates of SEH, using publicly available data to compare achievement outcomes
between brick-and-mortar and cyber charter schools. A mixed-methods approach provides a
stronger and richer understanding of the research problem than a purely quantitative or
qualitative design, enhancing both descriptive and interpretive insights (Wasti et al., 2022).
Population and Sample
The target population for this study consisted of high school principals and investigated
how they support students experiencing homelessness (SEH) enrolled in public schools across
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The state’s public education system includes fourteen
cyber charter schools, approximately 500 public school districts encompassing numerous
brick-and-mortar schools, and an additional 160 brick-and-mortar charter schools
(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2025b). In total, there are 740 high schools in Pennsylvania,
of which fourteen are cyber charter schools (Fox 29 Philadelphia, 2024). For the purposes of
this study, all brick-and-mortar public schools and brick-and-mortar charter schools were
grouped under the category of “brick-and-mortar schools” to simplify classification and analysis.
In addition, public school districts were considered “brick-and-mortar.”
A purposive sampling strategy was employed to ensure that participants were selected
based on their direct relevance to the research focus. This approach was particularly
appropriate for this study because it allowed for the intentional inclusion of Local Education

62
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Agencies (LEAs) with significant SEH populations, thereby increasing the likelihood of obtaining
informed perceptions and insights from principals who regularly work with this student
population. Preliminary enrollment data were reviewed to identify LEAs with the highest
proportions of SEH, and those with at least 5% SEH enrollment were considered for inclusion.
Three intermediate units (IUs) and eleven schools that did not serve high school students were
excluded from the pool, resulting in a final sample of forty-four LEAs. Of these, forty were
classified as brick-and-mortar schools, and four were classified as cyber charter schools (Ed
Data Express, 2024). All high school principals within these twenty LEAs were invited to
participate in the survey. Principals were provided with the option to forward the invitation to
participate to one of their assistant principals if they wished not to participate. Graduation rate
data for SEH were also obtained from the SchoolHouse Connection Database to provide
additional context for interpreting the survey responses. This sample, which incorporates both
cyber and brick-and-mortar schools, was intentionally designed to support the comparative
analysis central to the study’s research questions.
Instrumentation

​

The research utilized a seventeen-question survey (see Appendix A) adapted from a

study conducted by Dr. Brian Jones (2024) to collect demographic and perception data using a
combination of open ended, multi-select responses, and Likert scale questions. The approval to
use the pre-existing survey with one modification is included in Appendices B and C. The
original survey included sixteen questions. Questions one to six collected demographic
information including years in their current role, total years in leadership, their highest degree
attained, and the grade level in which they were a school leader. Questions seven to sixteen
include open-ended, multi-select responses, and Likert scale questions addressing the
participants' knowledge, perception, and strategies of MKVA and meeting the needs of SEH. Dr.

63
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Jones (2024) created this survey to collect the necessary data to generate descriptive data and
obtain reliable information on the familiarity of school leaders and MKVA. The demographic data
was used to demonstrate trends in principal experience and their implementation of MKVA. For
this study's purpose, an additional demographic question was added to determine if the principal
is currently in a brick-and-mortar or cyber charter school. In addition, question three was
modified to remove “school counselor” as a choice as the sample only includes school
principals. Although the intended sample is high school principals, question five was left to
ensure its validity. Any respondent indicating they were in a role other than at a high school was
removed from the data set. The questionnaire was disseminated using Qualtrics, and an
anonymous link was sent to participants via email once approved by the Institutional Review
Board (IRB). A copy of their approval can be found in Appendix D. The survey was estimated to
take fifteen minutes and was completed in Qualtrics. Informed consent from each participant
was obtained prior to participation (see Appendix E).

​

In addition to the data collected from the questionnaire, achievement data was retrieved

from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a). SchoolHouse Connection (2025a) provides detailed
data regarding SEH. This includes the ability to isolate data by state, county, and district. It also
provides information on absenteeism, category of homelessness, SEH with Individualized
Education Plans (IEP)s, demographic data such as race, funding amounts, and enrollment
numbers. For the purpose of this study, graduation rates of SEH were used to indicate
“achievement.” The most recent data available is from the 2022-2023 school year (SchoolHouse
Connection, 2025a).
Data Analysis
Survey responses were collected and stored in Qualtrics. The researcher reviewed all
responses for clarity and completion, and any incomplete surveys or responses from individuals

64
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
indicating they worked in elementary or middle schools were excluded from the study. Initial
descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies and percentages) were generated in Qualtrics to
summarize participant demographics, multi-select responses, and Likert-scale responses. All
quantitative data, including demographic information, multi-select responses, Likert-scale survey
responses, and achievement data obtained from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a), were
exported into IBM SPSS Statistics software (Version 29) for further analysis and confirmation of
descriptive results.
The graduation data retrieved from SchoolHouse Connection (2025a) included
numerous values as ranges (e.g., 40-59%, ≥80%). In addition, some values were denoted with a
“S” indicted insufficient data. This is due to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA), which requires data suppression or “blurring” when student subgroups are small
enough to potentially identify individual students. The results are presented as interval-censored
data (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). For the purpose of this study, the interval data was
translated using the midpoint of the provided range. For example, the mid-point of the range
40-59% was converted to the value of 49.5%. This approach was used for all data ranges and
inequalities. To ensure the use of this method did not influence the results, a sensitivity analysis
was conducted using the minimum and maximum values of each range and inequality to
determine if the results of the statistical analysis changed (Sun, 2006).
Qualitative data from open-ended survey questions were analyzed through a two-cycle
coding process, following the approach outlined by Saldana and Omasta (2016). In the first
cycle, In Vivo coding was used, which involved using participants’ own language to develop
codes, thereby preserving the authenticity and meaning of their responses. For example, the
code “flexible” might represent a statement such as “students appreciate attending classes on
their own time.” In the second cycle, Pattern coding was employed to group the initial codes into
broader themes and categories by identifying similarities, differences, and patterns within the

65
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
responses (Saldana, 2018). Descriptive statistics were then used to calculate the frequency of
each theme or code, allowing for comparisons between principals from cyber and
brick-and-mortar schools.
Fisher’s exact test was utilized to determine if statistically significant differences existed
between the survey responses of cyber charter and brick-and-mortar high school principals for
nominal data such as the multi-select survey items. For ordinal data such as survey questions or
interval data such as graduation rates, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. Although functionally
similar to a Chi-square analysis, Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test are the rigorous
choice for smaller sample sizes. For this analysis, significance was established at the p < .05
level. To evaluate the practical magnitude of these findings, the effect size was calculated.
Following standard conventions, values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 were used to denote small,
medium, and large effects, respectively. By reporting the effect size alongside p values, the
study accounts for both the statistical probability and the practical strength of the observed
differences (Field, 2013).
The following analyses were conducted to address the three research questions:
●​ To answer RQ1, qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed using In
Vivo and Pattern coding to identify strategies and support systems implemented by
principals to address the needs of SEH. A thematic analysis was conducted to compare
these strategies across cyber and brick-and-mortar schools. Descriptive statistics, such
as frequency counts of specific codes, were used to summarize and contrast the findings
between the two school models.
●​ To answer RQ2, a Fisher's exact test was conducted on the multi-select responses and
the Mann-Whitney U test was conducted on likert-scale questions to determine whether
statistically significant differences existed between principals in cyber and

66
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
brick-and-mortar schools regarding their perceptions, preparedness, and understanding
of SEH.
●​ To answer RQ3, a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to compare the mean ranks of
graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools and brick-and-mortar schools, as
reported in the SchoolHouse Connection (2025a) database.
Ethical Considerations

​

There were no major risks associated with participation in this study. Detailed information

regarding the study’s purpose, target population, potential risks, and anticipated benefits was
provided to each participant prior to obtaining written informed consent (Appendix E). The
researcher completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) as required by
Slippery Rock University, and all necessary documentation was submitted to and approved by
the Slippery Rock University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Data collection commenced only
after receiving IRB approval.
Data was collected anonymously and shared exclusively with the researcher’s
dissertation committee. Participants were assured of confidentiality throughout the study. All
data was stored on password-protected platforms and devices, and no paper copies were
printed or disseminated. Electronic data files will be securely destroyed three years after the
conclusion of the study.
The researcher has professional experience as a high school assistant principal, having
supported many students experiencing homelessness in both brick-and-mortar and cyber
charter school settings. Furthermore, the researcher maintains a personal relationship with
current administration from one of the cyber charter schools included in the sample. To mitigate
potential bias arising from this relationship, participants' responses associated with that school

67
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
will be treated with particular care, ensuring that data are analyzed objectively and confidentially.
Reflexivity and validity were further supported by employing a consistent, externally developed
survey instrument administered uniformly across all participants. Additionally, purposive
sampling was utilized to select participants, reducing selection bias and enhancing the study’s
rigor.
This study was guided by the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report including
respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (National Commission for the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Respect for persons was upheld by
ensuring informed consent and allowing participants to voluntarily engage or withdraw without
penalty. Beneficence was addressed by minimizing potential risks and maximizing benefits
through anonymous data collection and secure data management procedures. Justice was
ensured by purposive sampling that aimed to represent the population of principals across cyber
and brick-and-mortar schools fairly, providing equitable opportunity for participation. These
principles collectively safeguarded the rights, dignity, and welfare of all participants throughout
the research process.
Validity and Reliability

​

To strengthen the reliability and validity of this study, multiple strategies were employed,

including data triangulation, statistical analysis conducted at the standard level of significance,
and the use of a mixed-methods approach.
Triangulation involves using multiple data sources, research studies, theories, methods,
analysis strategies, and conclusions to develop a more comprehensive and accurate
understanding of the research problem (Moon, 2019). This study applied triangulation during the
development of the research questions to ensure the topic’s relevance, achieve a deep

68
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
understanding of existing knowledge, and design a methodology grounded in prior evidence.
The use of survey instruments adapted from previous research further enhanced the study’s
reliability and validity by building upon established measurement tools.
The researcher also applied statistical analysis with a conventional significance level of ɑ
= .05. For inferential tests such as the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test, hypotheses
are established where the null hypothesis assumes no relationship between variables, and the
alternative hypothesis assumes a relationship exists. The Mann-Whitney U test evaluates
interval data to determine whether differences between the two groups are statistically
significant. Fisher’s exact test reports statistical differences between two groups for nominal
data. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test are preferred over the independent
samples t-test and Chi-square analysis because this study includes a small sample size, thus
causing normality to be challenging to achieve (Field, 2013). Conclusions are drawn by either
rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis based on the significance level. A α of .05
indicates that the researcher accepts a 5% chance of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis
(Type I error) (Tokunaga, 2019). All inferential statistics in this study adhered to this threshold.
P-values are limited by statistical power in small samples; therefore, the effect size was
calculated to determine the practical significance of the findings, utilizing Cohen’s (1988)
thresholds for interpretation.
Furthermore, the choice to employ a mixed-methods design was deliberate to enhance
the study’s reliability and validity. By collecting data through multiple sources and strategies,
mixed-methods research increases the depth and breadth of understanding (Shahbaz, 2021).
Quantitative data identify trends and patterns, while qualitative data provide contextual
explanations for those phenomena. This study’s use of open-ended survey questions,
multi-select responses, Likert-scale items, and external databases collectively strengthened the
validity of the findings and conclusions. Additionally, the use of a consistent, externally

69
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
developed survey instrument ensured all participants received identical questions, thereby
enhancing the study’s reliability.
Limitations

​

This study had several limitations, including a small sample size between

brick-and-mortar and cyber charter school principals leading to an increased risk of Type II error.
The sample consisted of high school principals from twenty Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of which four are exclusively cyber programs, and sixteen
are public districts with brick-and-mortar schools. Additionally, the study collects principals’
perceptions, rather than lived experience. This means responses are subject to the participants’
perceptions and experiences. Furthermore, the study may experience non-response bias,
meaning participants may elect to be a part of the study because of their own interest,
awareness, or confidence in MKVA. Finally, the findings of this study are specific to
Pennsylvania and, while aligned with the study’s goals, have limited generalizability beyond this
context. Broader applicability would require further research in other states or regions. Finally,
the LEA data on percent of SEH was used to isolate the sample, however it is important to note
this metric is representative of the entire LEA. This means that LEAs with multiple schools may
have a total percent of SEH that is not necessarily representative of individual schools
participating in this study.
Summary

​

The purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of high school principals

regarding supporting SEH in brick-and-mortar versus cyber charter schools and how their
perceptions compare to the graduation rates of SEH in each school model. The goal is to inform
policy in Pennsylvania and provide evidence in support of school choice. This study has three

70
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
research questions including what strategies and supports high school principals in cyber and
brick-and-mortar schools use to support SEH, their perception regarding their understanding
and preparedness of MKVA in each setting, and the graduation rates of SEH in each setting. To
answer the research questions, a mixed-methods approach was used to collect quantitative and
qualitative data. High school principals from ten LEAs with the most SEH enrolled were invited
to participate in a survey via Qualtrics. The survey included a variety of open-ended,
demographic, multi-select responses, and Likert scale questions. Additional data on graduation
rates of SEH was retrieved from the SchoolHouse Connection database. Coding cycles were
used to process and analyze qualitative data while descriptive and inferential statistics were
used for the quantitative data with the support of Qualtrics and IBM’s SPSS. The researcher
was cognizant of potential bias and implemented strategies such as triangulation,
mixed-methods approaches, and standard research practice to strengthen reliability and validity
of the study.

71
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Chapter 4: Findings
This study investigated the perceptions of principals of SEH in brick-and-mortar versus
cyber high schools and compared them to the actual achievement of SEH in each model. The
goal is to inform policy for schools across Pennsylvania in support of school choice, particularly
within the current political debate of cyber charter schools. The methodology, research design,
sample, data collection, and analysis are rooted in three research questions. The research
questions and corresponding hypotheses are listed below:
RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber
charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing
homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?
RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools
regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?
H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​
schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar
H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​
schools.
H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar

72
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in
brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High
Schools?
H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools
versus brick-and-mortar schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar
H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools
versus brick-and-mortar schools.
H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar
This chapter aims to report the results of the data analysis gathered from the graduation
rates of SEH as reported to Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) via SchoolHouse
Connection database and survey responses from the high school principal questionnaire
(Appendix A). This chapter is structured as follows: introduction, review of research design and
analysis methods, analysis of data by research question, and summary. The quantitative and
qualitative data will be presented as it addresses each research question.
Review of Research Design
The results detailed in this chapter were derived using a convergent parallel
mixed-methods design in which principal survey data was collected concurrently with
achievement data for the select population. In this design, the mode of education (cyber or
brick-and-mortar) served as the independent variable, while principals’ strategies, perceptions,
and the achievement outcomes of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) were the
dependent variables. To collect data on principals’ perceptions of SEH and their general

73
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
preparedness to implement MKVA, a questionnaire from a previous study conducted by Dr.
Brian Jones (2024) was modified to meet the needs of this study (Appendix A). The survey
included demographic questions, likert-scale, select multi-select, and open-ended responses to
address RQ1 and RQ2. A purposive sample strategy was implemented to identify high school
principals in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that serve at least 5% of SEH based on the
reported Local Education Agency (LEA) data from the 2022-2023 school year. The sample was
narrowed to forty-four LEAs. The questionnaire was disseminated via an email addressed to
each Principal within the forty-four LEAs inviting principals to participate in an anonymous
survey through the platform Qualtrics (Appendix F). The recruitment email was sent each week
on Monday directly to the principals’ LEA email for six weeks. While principals were recruited to
participate in the survey, the graduation rate data for SEH for the sample LEAs was retrieved
from the SchoolHouse Connection database to investigate RQ3. The most recently available
data year was from the 2022-2023 school year. This dataset included the LEA’s enrollment data
for SEH and their graduation rates.

Review of Analysis Methods
The survey collected data for RQ1 and RQ2 via Qualtrics. IBM SPSS was used to
conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses. All open-ended responses were coded through a
two-cycle coding process. First, responses were analyzed to isolate phrases that represented
the principals’ attitudes towards the question. These phrases were direct quotes of the
responses from principals. The phrases were then analyzed for patterns. Similar phrases were
grouped under the same theme, and descriptive statistics such as frequency were used to
demonstrate trends. Demographic questions, Likert-scale questions, and multi-select responses
were analyzed quantitatively using a coding method. Each response was assigned a numerical
value (e.g., 1=cyber school, 2=brick-and-mortar). Once coded, descriptive statistics were used
to demonstrate general trends. To assess what, if any, relationship exists between school type

74
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
and participant responses, nominal data was further analyzed using the Fisher’s exact test and
effect size (ɸ). Ordinal and interval data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and
effect size (r). The Mann-Whitney U test was selected over the independent samples t-test due
to the small sample size of the data set. All analysis was conducted with a confidence level of
95% and a significance level of 5% (α=.05). Prior to the analysis of quantitative data, the
distribution of each data set was conducted. For each research question, the data was not
normally distributed. This further supported the justification of using the Mann-Whitney U test
versus an independent samples t-test.
The graduation rates of SEH for the selected forty-four LEAs were retrieved from the
SchoolHouse connection database to address RQ3. The analysis was conducted using
quantitative methods. The model of school was coded in preparation for analysis in IBM SPSS
(i.e., 1=cyber, 2=brick-and-mortar). No other data from the RQ3 dataset required quantitative
coding. The data was then analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test.
Similarly to the survey data, the Mann-Whitney U test was selected over the independent
samples t-test due to the small sample size of the data set and the lack of normal distribution.
While the Mann-Whitney U test is appropriate for small sample sizes, the limited number of
participants, particularly in the cyber school group (n=5), constrains the statistical power of this
analysis. Consequently, the probability of a Type II error is increased. These sample constraints
should be considered when interpreting non-significant results, as the study may not have been
sufficiently powered to detect subtle but meaningful differences between the two school models.
All data was analyzed and presented within the context of the independent and
dependent variables. The independent variable for this study was the type of school (i.e., cyber
or brick-and-mortar), and the dependent variables were the principals’ perceptions, strategies,
and SEH graduation outcomes. For data to be statistically significant, the results of the Fisher’s
exact test (nominal data) or Mann-Whitney U test (ordinal and interval data) must be less than

75
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
.05 (p<.05) with a 95% confidence level. The effect size was used to further confirm the practical
difference of the variables. If the effect size is greater than .1, the effect is considered slight,
moderate if the value is greater than .3, and large if the value is greater than .5. A summary of
the data sets, research questions, and analysis methods are found in Table 1.

76
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table 1
Research Question Data Analysis Summary

Research Question

Type of Data

Analysis Methods

Survey items
RQ1: What specific strategies and
10-15
support systems do high school
principals in cyber charter schools
implement to address the needs of
students experiencing homelessness,
and how do these compare to those
implemented by high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools
in Pennsylvania?

Qualitative
Quantitative

2 cycle coding
Descriptive statistics
(e.g. frequencies,
percentages, effect
size)
Fisher’s exact test

Survey items
7-9;16

Quantitative

Descriptive statistics
(e.g. frequencies,
percentages, effect
size, mean ranks)
Fisher’s exact test
(nominal data)
Mann-Whitney U test
(ordinal data)

Graduation
Rates of
SEH via
SchoolHouse
Connection
Database

Quantitative

Descriptive statistics
(e.g. frequencies,
percentages, effect
size, mean ranks)
Mann-Whitney U test
(interval data)

RQ2: What are the perceptions of
high school principals in cyber
charter schools regarding their
preparedness and understanding of
MKVA, as compared to high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools
in Pennsylvania?

RQ3: How does the academic
achievement (graduation rates) of
SEH in brick-and-mortar schools
compare to cyber charter schools in
Pennsylvania High Schools?

Data

Note. RQ = research question; SEH = students experiencing homelessness; MKVA =
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. Survey item numbers correspond to the study
instrument. Graduation rate data were obtained from the SchoolHouse Connection Database.
Fisher’s exact test was used for nominal data, and Mann–Whitney U tests were used for ordinal
and interval data.

77
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Participants
Participants in this study represent principals and assistant principals in brick-and-mortar
and cyber high schools across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with at least 5% of their
student population experiencing homelessness according to the 2022-2023 school year data.
The survey was sent to high school principals at forty-four LEAs meeting these criteria. They
were invited to forward the email to an assistant principal in the event they did not wish to
participate. Participation in the survey was completely confidential, therefore no personally
identifying information was collected. In total, twenty-six principals and assistant principals
completed the survey, for a completion rate of 59%. Of those that participated, five were
administrators at a cyber high school, and twenty-one were administrators at brick-and-mortar
high schools. Table 2 shows the responses of each participant to the first five survey questions,
which asked demographic questions. Survey item #5 asked participants to indicate if they
served any other role at their current school. No participants served in another role; therefore,
the question was omitted from Table 2. Survey item #6 asked participants to indicate if they
were an administrator of a brick-and-mortar and cyber school.

78
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table 2

Note. Brick-and-mortar schools (n = 21); cyber schools (n = 5).
10 participants serve as principal and 11 serve as assistant principal to either a
brick-and-mortar or cyber high school. In addition, all participants had at least a master’s
degree, with four doctorates. Two participants selected “other” when asked their highest
education level attained but wrote that they were pursuing doctorate degrees. Therefore, their
response was coded as the highest education level attained was a master’s degree. The
majority had at least four years of leadership experience overall and were in their current
position for at least a year. Table 3 shows the average percentage of key demographic data.

79
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table 3
Participant Demographics Percentages

Note. N = 26 school leaders. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Leadership
experience is reported as the mean number of years in a formal school leadership role. Cyber
schools refer to fully online public schools, whereas brick-and-mortar schools refer to traditional
in-person public schools.
The average years of leadership experience for cyber charter administrators was 5.8
years, while the average was 5.95 years for brick-and-mortar administrators. Most of each
group’s highest attained degree was a master’s degree, with 80% of cyber administrators and
85.71% of brick-and-mortar administrators. 20% of cyber administrators and 14.29% of
brick-and-mortar administrators had a doctorate.
Presentation of the Findings
Research Question 1
The first research question of this study posed what specific strategies and support
systems do high school principals in cyber charter schools implement to address the needs of
students experiencing homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high
school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? Questions ten to fifteen of the
survey addressed the strategies principals used to support SEH. The questions included
open-ended questions and multiple-response questions.

80
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
To answer RQ1, qualitative data from open-ended questions were analyzed using In
Vivo and Pattern coding to identify strategies and support systems implemented by principals to
address the needs of SEH. A thematic analysis was conducted to compare these strategies
across cyber and brick-and-mortar schools. Descriptive statistics, such as frequency counts of
specific codes, were used to summarize and contrast the findings between the two school
models. The themes of the coding results can be found in Table 4. The results are presented to
compare cyber school and brick-and-mortar school principals.
Table 4
Open- Ended Emerging Themes by School Type

Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the
proportion of participants within each school type who referenced a given theme in their
open-ended responses. Open-ended responses were coded using thematic analysis, and
participants could reference multiple themes; therefore, percentages do not total 100. Fisher’s

81
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
exact test was used due to small cell sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level
(two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a
stronger correlation between the school type and selected choice.
Nine consistent themes appeared throughout the survey for the open-ended responses.
Most common responses for brick-and-mortar principals included social and emotional support,
basic needs, community partnerships, and academic support. Most cyber school principals
mentioned social and emotional support, basic needs, community partnerships, and
collaboration. Social and emotional support included responses that mentioned social work,
counseling services, homeless liaisons, and case managers. Basic needs codes include food,
clothing, housing, transportation, hygiene supplies, and school supplies. Community
partnerships included a broader reference, or in some cases, participants listed specific
organizations within their community. Academic support included 1:1 check-in meetings and
other academic interventions such as MTSS. Collaboration refers to meetings between staff
members and families.
These themes were woven throughout various responses from school leaders. One
brick-and-mortar principal shared “we are a trauma informed school, and our training includes
supporting homeless students. In addition, we make sure to address their basic needs and help
them connect with local agencies. We are flexible with grading and assignments also”. This was
echoed by a cyber charter principal that said “We create a supportive and inclusive environment
for homeless students by providing access to meals, school supplies, clothing, transportation,
and safe spaces within the school. Our own social-emotional team made up of counselors,
social workers, a mental health specialist, and MV/ELECT staff, works alongside local partners
like Project HOME, Bethesda Project, and Valley Youth House to provide counseling, tutoring,
mentorship, and family support that ensures academic success and social-emotional
well-being". In addition, one participant shared “An overall school culture of understanding that
our students live complicated lives that affect academics. We accept late work, keep the building

82
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
open early and late, MTSS Problem Solving Meetings. MTSS Meetings help us to determine the
root cause of student issues and implement interventions to assist”. These leaders exemplify
the unique needs of SEH and their work to establish impactful relationships and counteract
deficit thinking. It is evident that school leaders are cognizant of a holistic approach to
supporting and meeting the needs of all their students, especially those experiencing
homelessness.
In addition to more broad themes, it is worth noting that two principals explicitly stated
students feel safe due to the confidentiality their school provides. One principal wrote, “Being in
an on-line cyber charter school, other students do not know that the student is homeless or
facing financial difficulties. This helps make the student feel safe knowing that they are not being
judged.” A brick-and-mortar high school principal wrote “We operate with ensuring the child and
parent don’t feel diminished and keep their dignity. Any help we provide is confidential and
supportive.”
Only two themes appeared in one school type, but not the other. First, technology was
mentioned in 40% of cyber principal responses, but by 0% of brick-and-mortar principals. Each
participant referenced providing the student and families with computers, access to the internet,
and providing families with hot-spot devices. One cyber leader stated they “Provide students
with technology and hot-spots as needed”. Second, 9.5% of brick-and-mortar principals
mentioned ensuring equal access to extracurricular activities such as athletics, while 0% of
cyber principals stated something similar. One brick-and-mortar leader shared they promote
“participation in athletics, music and drama programs, waiving dance and prom ticket prices”.
In addition to the frequencies in which each theme was represented in the two-cycle
coding process, Table 4 also displayed the results of Fisher's exact test and effect size. The
Fisher’s exact test is an inferential statistic for nominal data that calculates a p-value just as a
two-sample t-test; however, it is preferred when the sample size is small. The effect size (ɸ) is
used to determine the strength of the correlation. According to the results, cyber principals

83
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
prioritize technology more than brick-and-mortar principals (p<.05). While not as statistically
significant (p>.05), according to the effect size, cyber school principals supported
social-emotional, basic needs, community partnerships, financial support, and collaboration
more than brick-and-mortar principals (0.30<ɸ<0.50). Results demonstrating no significant
difference or meaning between brick-and-mortar principals and cyber principals was providing a
safe space and extracurricular activities (p>.05 and ɸ<0.10).
High school principals were provided three multi-select survey items to provide further
information on the strategies to support SEH, communication methods with families of SEH, and
the measures they use to determine the success of SEH. The results of these survey items are
found in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7.
Table 5
MKVA Success Measures by School Type

Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the
proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option.
Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not
total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to

84
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95%
confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation
between the school type and selected choice.
Survey item eleven asked “How do you measure the success of MKVA programs on
homeless students’ academic performance and overall well-being?” Brick-and-mortar principals
selected attendance (76.19%), graduation rates (57.14%), and student feedback (57.15%) as
their most frequently used metrics. Cyber principals selected graduation rates (100%),
attendance (60%), and state test scores (60%) as their most frequently used metrics. Four
brick-and-mortar high school principals and one cyber charter high school principal indicated
they used metrics not listed, by selecting “other.” Two of the four brick-and-mortar principals
wrote they do not measure the success of SEH. The other two brick-and-mortar principals wrote
in other testing platforms (e.g., IXL) and parent meetings. The cyber principal indicated their
academic interventionist conducts progress monitoring. When comparing the principals from
each type of school, there is no statistically significant difference between the selected
measures of success for SEH between cyber high school principals and brick-and-mortar high
school principals (p>.05). However, the effect size indicates cyber charter high school principals
are more likely to use graduation rates to determine success of SEH than brick-and-mortar high
school principals (0.30<ɸ<0.50).

85
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table 6
Services for SEH by School Type

Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the
proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option.
Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not
total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to
small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95%
confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation
between the school type and selected choice.

86
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Survey item fourteen asked “What services does your school provide to students facing
homelessness?” Brick-and-mortar principals selected school supplies (90.48%), counseling
(85.71%), hygiene products (85.71%), and clothing (80.95%) as their most frequently provided
services. Cyber charter principals had 100% of participants select school supplies, tutoring,
counseling, hygiene products, housing, family services, and technology support as services they
provide SEH. According to Fisher's exact test and effect size, there is no statistically significant
difference between the services for SEH between cyber high school principals and
brick-and-mortar high school principals (p>.05). However, cyber high school principals are
approaching significance in their support of housing and legal assistance (approaching p<.05)
with a practical and large effect (0.30<ɸ<0.50). In addition, cyber charter high school principals
are more likely to support SEH with family services (0.30<ɸ<0.50) and moderately more likely to
support with technology needs and tutoring (0.10<ɸ<0.30). With that being said,
brick-and-mortar high school principals are more likely to support SEH with transportation
(0.30<ɸ<0.50).

87
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table 7
Communication Methods by School Type

Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the
proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option.
Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not
total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to
small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95%
confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation
between the school type and selected choice.
Survey item fifteen asked “How do you communicate with families about the available
services for homeless students?” Brick-and-mortar principals selected phone calls (66.67%),
school website (61.90%), and family conferences (57.14%) as their most frequently used
communication tools. Cyber principals selected email (100%), phone call (100%), text (100%),

88
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
and family conferences (80%) as their most frequently used methods of communication.
According to Fisher's exact test and effect size, cyber charter high school principals are
significantly more likely to communicate with families of SEH via text (p<.05 and ɸ>0.50). In
addition, cyber charter high school principals are more likely to communicate with families and
SEH by email (0.30<ɸ). They are also slightly more likely to communicate via school newsletter,
phone call, and conferences (.10<ɸ<.30). Brick-and-mortar high school principals are more likely
to communicate through their school website (0.30<ɸ).

Research Question 2
The second research question of this study asks what are the perceptions of high school
principals in cyber charter schools regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as
compared to high school principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania? Questions
seven to nine and sixteen of the survey addressed the perceptions of the principals. Three of
the questions were likert scale responses, and one question was mulit-select.
To answer RQ2, all data was coded to conduct a quantitative analysis. The multi-select question
was coded based on the answers selected. The likert-scale questions were coded similarly to
assign a numerical value to their selected choice (e.g., 1=not effective, 2= slightly effective,
etc.,), Descriptive statistics, such as frequency counts of specific codes, were used to
summarize trends. For nominal data in survey item eight, Fisher’s exact test and effect size
were calculated to assess if there are differences between the two school models. For the
ordinal data of survey items seven, nine, and sixteen, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to
evaluate the relationship between the perceptions of preparedness of principals at cyber charter
high schools and brick-and-mortar high schools. The results of the Mann-Whitney U test were
used to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis (H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar).
Survey item eight asked principals to indicate the training and professional development
they have received on MKVA. Their options included district-based workshops, state-sponsored

89
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
training, online courses, or other activities. The results of the principals’ responses are displayed
in Table 8.
Table 8
MKVA Professional Development by School Type

Note. N = 26 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 21; cyber, n = 5). Percentages represent the
proportion of participants within each school type who selected each response option.
Participants were permitted to select more than one response; therefore, percentages do not
total 100. Fisher’s exact test was used to examine differences between school types due to
small sample sizes, with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95%
confidence level. Effect size (ɸ) is reported, where |ɸ| ≥ .30 indicates a stronger correlation
between the school type and selected choice.
Survey item eight asked “What type of training or professional development have you
received regarding the MKVA?” Out of the twenty-six participants, two brick-and-mortar
principals did not select any professional development options or indicate a choice not listed.
Brick-and-mortar and cyber principals selected district workshops most frequently
(brick-and-mortar=66.67%, cyber=100%). One brick-and-mortar principal selected “other” but

90
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
did not specify. When comparing brick-and-mortar principals to cyber charter principals, there is
not a statistically significant difference in the selected professional development (p>.05).
However, cyber charter principals were slightly more likely to indicate their attendance of district
workshops and state-sponsored trainings (.10<ɸ<.30).

91
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table 9
Perception of Principals’ Preparedness by School Type

Note. N = 25 participants (brick-and-mortar, n = 20; cyber, n = 5). Values represent the number
and percentage of principals within each school type who selected each response option for
each Likert-scale item. Differences between school types were analyzed using the
Mann–Whitney U test due to small sample sizes and the ordinal nature of Likert-scale data. All
tests were two-tailed with statistical significance evaluated at α = .05 and a 95% confidence

92
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
level. Effect size (r) indicates practical differences, where values of approximately .10, .30, and
.50 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
Survey items seven, nine, and sixteen assessed principals’ understanding and
perceptions of preparedness of MKVA in cyber charter versus brick-and-mortar high schools.
The results of the survey are shown in Table 9. Most participants, regardless of school type,
indicated they had either a good or excellent understanding of MKVA. In addition, most
participants indicated their schools were moderately to extremely effective in implementing
MKVA. When asked to what extent they agree with the statement “As a school leader, I have
adequate knowledge and training on MKVA implementation,” most participants, regardless of
school type, reported they either agreed or completely agreed with the statement. The p-values
for the Mann-Whitney U test (p>.05) indicated no statistically significant difference in
perceptions between school types; therefore, the null hypothesis is retained. This retention must
not be misinterpreted as proof of equivalence between school models; instead, it reflects the
methodological constraints of the study's small cyber school sample (n=5), which resulted in
limited statistical power to detect differences. The interpretive weight of these findings is
strengthened by moderate effect sizes (r=0.35) for both MKVA understanding and perceived
training adequacy, as well as the divergence in mean ranks for understanding (Brick-and-mortar
= 14.05 vs. Cyber = 8.80) and training (Brick-and-mortar = 13.11 vs. Cyber = 8.00). These
distributional differences, illustrated in Figures 4, 5, and 6, suggest potential trends that warrant
further investigation with a larger, more balanced sample.

93
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Figure 4
Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Understanding Between School Types

Note. This figure displays principals’ self-reported understanding of the McKinney-Vento Act
(MKVA) provisions by school type. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale,
with lower values indicating greater perceived understanding. The Mann-Whitney U test
revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 8. 80) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20,
𝑅 = 14. 05) did not differ in their ratings of their own understanding of MKVA, U=29.00,
z=-1.732, p= .169, with a moderate effect size r=.35. The statistical significance of the results
were evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. The data was not
normally distributed.
While not statistically significant according to the p values reported in Table 9 (p=.169),
the mean rank in Figure 4 and the effect size reported in Table 9 (r=.35) demonstrate
brick-and-mortar principals are moderately more confident in their understanding of MKVA
(Mean Rank=14.05, .30
94
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS

95
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Figure 5
Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Effectiveness Between School Types

Note. This figure displays principals’ self-reported understanding of the McKinney-Vento Act
(MKVA) provisions by school type. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale,
with lower values indicating greater perceived understanding. The Mann-Whitney U test
revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 16. 30) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20,
𝑅 = 12. 18) did not differ in their perceptions of their school’s implementation of MKVA,
U=66.50, z=1.182, p= .272, with a small effect size r=.24. The statistical significance of the
results were evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. The data was
not normally distributed.
While not statistically significant according to the p values reported in Table 9 (p=.272),
the mean rank in Figure 5 and the effect size reported in Table 9 (r=.24) demonstrate cyber

96
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
charter principals are slightly more confident in their school’s effectiveness in implementing
MKVA (Mean Rank=14.05, .10< r<.30).
Figure 6
Comparison of Principals’ Perceptions of MKVA Knowledge and Training Between School Types

Note. This figure displays principals’ self-reported understanding of the McKinney-Vento Act
(MKVA) provisions by school type. Responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale,
with lower values indicating greater perceived understanding. The Mann-Whitney U test
revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 8. 00) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20,
𝑅 = 13. 11) did not differ in their self-assessment of their knowledge and training on MKVA,
U=25.00, z=-1.677, p= .150, with a moderate effect size r=.35. The statistical significance of the
results were evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. The data was
not normally distributed.

97
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
While not statistically significant according to the p values reported in Table 9 (p-.15), the
mean rank in Figure 6 and the effect size reported in Table 9 (r=.35) demonstrate
brick-and-mortar principals are moderately more agreeable with the statement “As a school
leader, I have adequate knowledge and training on the MKVA implementation”. (Mean
Rank=13.11, .30< r<.50).

Research Question 3
The third, and final, research question of this study asks how does the academic
achievement (graduation rates of SEH in brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter
schools in Pennsylvania High Schools? The graduation data of SEH for the forty-four schools in
the researcher’s sample was retrieved from the SchoolHouse Connection data base (2025a).
The summary of the graduation results of SEH based on school type is displayed in Figure 7. As
previously discussed, the original data set included interval-censored data. As a result, the
values were converted using midpoints. Additional sensitivity analyses were conducted using
the minimum values and maximum values to confirm the approach did not impact the results of
the statistical analysis.

98
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Figure 7
Graduation Rates of SEH by School Type

Note. This figure presents the distribution of graduation rates for students experiencing
homelessness (SEH) by school type. Boxplots display the median, interquartile range, and
overall range of graduation rates for brick-and-mortar schools and cyber schools. The data was
not normally distributed.
The box plot (Figure 7) illustrates the distribution and medians of each data set. The
median graduation rate of SEH in brick-and-mortar LEAs (Md=50%) is lower than those in cyber
charter LEAs (Md=59.5%). While the cyber charter group exhibits a wider interquartile range
(IQRcyber= 20.0; IQRbrick-and-mortar=17.0), its distribution is perfectly symmetrical. In contrast, the
brick-and-mortar data is more skewed; while most schools are clustered at the lower median
value, a small number of high-performing outliers create a positive skew in the distribution.
To assess the correlation between school type and graduation rates of SEH, a
Mann-Whitney U test was conducted with statistical significance evaluated at the .05 level
(two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level, and the results are displayed in Figure 8. The mean

99
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
rank of brick-and-mortar graduation rates for SEH is 11.29, while the mean rank of cyber
graduation rates of SEH is 9.75.
Figure 8
Comparison of Graduation Rates for SEH Between School Types

Note. This figure illustrates graduation rates for students experiencing homelessness (SEH) by
school type. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed SEH in cyber charter schools (n = 4, 𝑅 = 9. 75)
and SEH in brick-and-mortar schools (n = 17, 𝑅 = 11. 29) did not differ in their graduation rates,
U= 29.00, z=-.463, p=.698, with a small effect size r=.10. The statistical significance was
evaluated at the .05 level (two-tailed) and a 95% confidence level. Distributions are shown by
frequency, and mean ranks are reported for each group. The data was not normally distributed.
The mean rank (𝑅) indicates SEH at brick-and-mortar schools are more likely to
graduate than SEH at cyber charter schools. However, this data alone is not sufficient to
determine if the differences in graduation rates between brick-and-mortar high schools and

100
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
cyber charter high schools are statistically significant. Therefore, the p value and effect size of
the Mann-Whitney U test are crucial to determining how significant the difference in mean ranks
is between school types. Based on the results, the difference in graduation rates between
brick-and-mortar schools and cyber charter schools is not statistically significant with a value of
p=.698 and an effect size of r=.10. For the results to be statistically significant, p<.05 would be
required. The current result (p=.698) indicates that the observed differences in graduation rates
are not statistically significant within this dataset. This finding should be interpreted as a lack of
evidence for a difference rather than definitive proof that graduation rates are identical across
school models. The small number of cyber charter LEAs (n=4) in this specific dataset further
limits the ability to generalize these findings or confirm true equivalence.
In order to ensure the handling of the interval-censored data did not impact the decision
to retain or reject the null hypothesis for the final research question, the Mann-Whitney U-test
and effect size were conducted using the midpoint, maximum value, and minimum value for the
reported graduation rates. The results of the sensitivity analysis are displayed in Table 10.

101
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Table 10
Comparison of Hypothesis Results of Graduation Rates of SEH versus School Type Using
Different Approaches to Interval-Censored Data
Approach to
Interval-censo
red
p value
Graduation
(Mann-Whitn
Data
ey U Test)

Cyber
Charter
Brick-and-mo
School Mean rtar Mean
Rank
Rank
Effect size (r) Hypothesis Decision
Retain the null
Midpoint
0.698
9.75
11.29
0.1 hypothesis
Maximum
Retain the null
Value
0.12
6.5
12.06
0.372 hypothesis
Minimum
Retain the null
Value
0.635
9.5
11.35
0.125 hypothesis
Note. N = 21 schools (brick-and-mortar, n = 17; cyber, n = 4). Differences in graduation rates
between school types were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test due to small sample sizes.
All tests were two-tailed with statistical significance evaluated at α = .05 and a 95% confidence
level. Effect size (r) indicates practical differences, where values of approximately .10, .30, and
.50 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively.
Based on the results of the Mann-Whitney U test and the effect size (r), it is determined
that using the midpoint of the interval-censored data did not impact the decision to retain the null
hypothesis. For each approach (midpoint, maximum, or minimum), p>.05 and r<.5, therefore the
null hypothesis is retained. The maximum value yielded r=.372, which is considered moderate
practical significance. However, when combined with the p value and the results of the other
approaches to the interval-censored data, the null hypothesis was retained. ​

Summary
This study explored the perceptions of high school principals regarding students
experiencing homelessness (SEH) across both brick-and-mortar and cyber charter school
settings and examined how these perceptions align with actual student achievement in each
model. While the final report includes the decision to either retain or reject the null hypothesis,

102
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
the statistical significance must be considered within the context of the data. The calculations
were conducted with a 95% confidence interval (α=.05). Due to the small sample size and lack
of normal distribution, the effect size was used to further support the decision for each
hypothesis. For the results of the Mann-Whitney U test to be considered statistically significant,
p<.05. The effect size (ɸ or r) was further used to assess any practical differences that may exist
between school types. When determining if the null hypothesis should be retained or rejected, p
values and effect size should be interpreted together. While a p value of greater than .05
indicates the null hypothesis should be retained, the effect size of either ɸ>.30 or r>.30 indicate
a moderately to strong practical difference exists between school types. These sample
constraints should be considered when interpreting the non-significant results as the study may
not have been sufficiently powered to detect subtle, but meaningful differences between the two
school types. The conclusions by research question are as follows:
RQ1: What specific strategies and support systems do high school principals in cyber
charter schools implement to address the needs of students experiencing
homelessness, and how do these compare to those implemented by high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?
Results: Principals from brick-and-mortar and cyber charter high schools shared
strategies to address social-emotion support, meeting basic needs, establishing
community partnerships, technology support, providing safes spaces, academic
support, financial support, extracurricular activities, and collaboration. According
to open ended questions, cyber charter principals prioritized technology support
such as internet more than brick-and-mortar principals (p<.05; r>.5). In addition,
cyber charter principals were more likely to support social-emotional, basic
needs, community partnerships, financial support, and collaboration more than
brick-and-mortar principals (p>.05; ɸ >.30). There were no significant differences

103
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
between principals at each school type regarding safe spaces, academic support,
or access to extracurricular activities (p>.05; ɸ <.30). When asked about the
metrics used by school principals to measure the success of support for SEH,
cyber charter principals are more likely to use graduation rates to determine the
success of SEH (p>.05; ɸ>.30). There was no statistical or practical difference
between school type and their use of state tests scores, attendance, or student
feedback to assess the success of support offered to SEH (p>.05; ɸ <.3). Finally,
when asked to check off the services schools provide for SEH, cyber charter
principals are more likely to support housing, legal assistance and family services
(p>.05; ɸ >.30). Brick-and-mortar principals reported more frequent interventions
involving transportation (p>.05; ɸ>.30). There was no statistical or practical
difference between school type and the support of school supplies, tutoring,
counseling, hygiene products, clothing, healthcare, school programs, summer
programs, and counseling (p>.05; ɸ<.30).
RQ2: What are the perceptions of high school principals in cyber charter schools
regarding their preparedness and understanding of MKVA, as compared to high school
principals in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania?
H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​
schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar

104
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
H1: There is a difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​
schools.
H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar
Results: The Mann-Whitney U test revealed cyber charter principals (n=5,
𝑅 = 14. 05) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20, 𝑅 = 8. 80) did not differ in
their ratings of their own understanding of MKVA, U=29.00, z=-1.732, p= .169,
with a moderate effect size r=.35. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed cyber
charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 16. 30) and brick-and-mortar principals (n=20,
𝑅 = 12. 18) did not differ in their perceptions of their school’s implementation of
MKVA, U=66.50, z=1.182, p= .272, with a small effect size r=.24. The
Mann-Whitney U test revealed cyber charter principals (n=5, 𝑅 = 8. 00) and
brick-and-mortar principals (n=20, 𝑅 = 13. 11) did not differ in their
self-assessment of their knowledge and training on MKVA, U=25.00, z=-1.677,
p= .150, with a moderate effect size r=.35. As a result of the three survey items
addressing RQ3, there is no statistically significant difference in the principals’
perceptions of preparedness and understanding of MKVA in cyber charter
schools versus brick-and-mortar schools (p>.05), however there is a medium
practical difference according to the effect size (r> .30). Considering the sample
size, p values, and effect size, we retain the null hypothesis.
RQ3: How does the academic achievement (graduation rates) of SEH in
brick-and-mortar schools compare to cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania High
Schools?

105
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools
versus brick-and-mortar schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar
H1: There is a difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools
versus brick-and-mortar schools.
H1: μcyber≠μbrick-and-mortar
Results: The Mann-Whitney U test revealed SEH in cyber charter schools
(n = 4, 𝑅 = 9. 75) and SEH in brick-and-mortar schools (n = 17, 𝑅 = 11. 29) did
not differ in their graduation rates, U= 29.00, z=-.463, p=.698, with a small effect
size r=.10. There is no statistical or practical difference in the graduation rates of
SEH in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools (p>.05; r≤.10),
therefore we retain the null hypothesis.

106
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Chapter 5: Discussion
Introduction
The purpose of this convergent parallel mixed-methods study was to examine high
school principals' perceptions of supporting students experiencing homelessness (SEH) and to
compare the strategies, preparedness, and student outcomes between traditional
brick-and-mortar and cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. As the population of SEH
continues to rise, the principal serves as the primary arbiter of school culture implementation of
the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA). This chapter discusses the implications and meaning behind
the findings presented in the previous chapter. By interpreting the data through the dual lenses
of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
(MHN), this discussion highlights the intersection of systemic policy, leadership efficacy, and the
foundational needs of students who face significant barriers to academic success.
The following analysis bridges the gap between the measurable trends in graduation
rates and the nuanced, qualitative voices of school leaders navigating the complexities of
homelessness. It also addresses the current political focus on the efficacy of cyber charter
schools in Pennsylvania and provides evidence to support the need for school choice. By
integrating the quantitative results of the Mann-Whitney U-Tests with the thematic coding of
principal responses, this chapter provides a holistic understanding of how school setting
influences the equity of educational opportunities for Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable students.

Summary of Findings
The findings of this study provide a nuanced look at how high school principals in
Pennsylvania navigate the complexities of supporting SEH within two distinct educational
models. While the quantitative data suggests a level of parity in policy knowledge and student
graduation outcomes, the qualitative data reveals significant divergence in the leadership
strategies and priorities utilized by brick-and-mortar versus cyber charter principals.

107
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Strategies to Support Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ1)
The data indicates that both school types utilize a broad range of support. including
social-emotional learning (SEL), community partnerships, and academic interventions. Cyber
charter principals demonstrate a more intensive focus on technological infrastructure, financial
assistance, and direct family services. Cyber leaders are notably more likely to facilitate legal
assistance and tutoring as part of their support framework, whereas brick-and-mortar principals
remain the primary providers of transportation services. Furthermore, cyber charter principals
appear more inclined to use graduation rates as a primary metric for determining the success of
their SEH support initiatives, suggesting a results-oriented approach to leadership in the virtual
space.

Preparedness and Implementation of MKVA (RQ2)
Regarding the implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA), the study found no
statistically significant difference in how prepared or knowledgeable principals felt across the
two school models. However, there are practical differences including cyber charter principals’
preference for district and state professional development. In addition, brick-and-mortar
principals reported having a stronger perception of understanding and implementation of MKVA,
while cyber charter principals reported a higher level of effectiveness. Based on the results of
the Mann-Whitney U test, the analysis resulted in the retention of the null hypothesis:
H0: There is no difference in the principals’ perceptions of preparedness and ​
understanding of MKVA in cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar ​​
schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar
(p>.05)

​

​

108
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Graduation Rates of Students Experiencing Homelessness (RQ3)
Finally, this study examined the achievement of SEH in brick-and-mortar versus cyber
charter schools. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the graduation
outcomes of SEH between cyber charter and brick-and-mortar high schools but did demonstrate
a practical difference in favor of brick-and-mortar high schools. Consequently, the null
hypothesis was retained:
H0: There is no difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools versus
​

brick-and-mortar schools.
H0: μcyber=μbrick-and-mortar
(p>.05)

Discussion of Results
Schools serve as essential hubs for community-based support, providing the
foundational physiological and psychological resources identified in MHN (Guy-Evans, 2025a).
These academic, mental health, and stabilizing resources are vital for SEH (Havlik et al., 2014;
Prinz, 2023). This role is further underscored by Bronfenbrenner’s EST, which situates the
school within the student's microsystem (Guy-Evans, 2025b). However, the efficacy of these
supports is often compromised by institutional barriers, such as the stigma of housing instability,
deficit thinking among staff, and a lack of systemic flexibility (Wright et al., 2019; Wagaman et
al., 2022). Principals take on the role of the mesosystem and bridge the gap between the school
microsystem and the policies such as MKVA within the exosystem. School leaders are uniquely
positioned to dismantle these barriers by establishing a clear vision, fostering a supportive
school culture, and ensuring the robust implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act and
Pennsylvania’s Act 1 (Leithwood et al., 2004; Ferguson & Francis, 2024).
While traditional brick-and-mortar schools have historically functioned as the primary
hubs for student support, the emergence of cyber charter schools offers a flexible alternative

109
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
that traditional models may lack (Kingsbury et al., 2022). Currently, cyber charter schools in
Pennsylvania face significant political scrutiny and legislative challenges regarding funding and
comparative academic performance (Scolforo, 2025). However, research indicating lower
performance in these settings frequently fails to establish a causal relationship, raising the
question; does the virtual instructional model itself hinder achievement, or are these schools
attracting high-needs students who were already struggling within the rigid structures of
brick-and-mortar settings?
Analyzing the perceptions of high school principals is critical to understanding how these
distinct school choice models either mitigate or exacerbate the barriers faced by SEH. The
following interpretation synthesizes these leadership voices to provide actionable insights for
policy, professional development, and practice within the evolving landscape of Pennsylvania’s
educational systems.

Research Question 1
The first research question addressed the strategies and support high school principals
offer in their schools. Multiple survey items, including open ended responses and multi-select
questions asked principals to share their strategies to support SEH, how they communicate with
students and families about the services the school provides, and how the measure the success
of SEH.
Strategies. Principals responded to two questions regarding specific strategies they use
to support SEH. First, an open-ended question, then a multi-select question. The combination of
qualitative and quantitative data was used to identify specific strategies and then provide an
opportunity for school leaders to elaborate on the specifics of how they support SEH. Nine key
themes presented themselves during the qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey items.
High school principals, regardless of school type, identified social-emotional learning, meeting

110
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
basic needs, community partnerships, technology support, creating safe spaces, providing
academic support, financial support, extracurricular activities, and collaborative approaches.
The findings for the first research question reveal that while both brick-and-mortar and
cyber charter principals prioritize social-emotional support, basic needs, and community
partnerships, their specific operational strategies diverge significantly based on their educational
model. Qualitative thematic analysis indicates that cyber charter principals place a statistically
higher priority on technological infrastructure (p < .05), such as providing hardware and
hotspots, which was a theme absent from brick-and-mortar responses. Conversely,
brick-and-mortar leaders focus more heavily on physical access, specifically through
transportation services and ensuring participation in extracurricular activities. These priority
differences are logical within the context of each setting. Cyber charter school students require
internet access to attend classes. They also do not require transportation to and from school. In
addition, cyber charter schools do not have sports programs or extensive extra-curricular
activities in a way that brick-and-mortar schools do.
Another trend that was evident is the effort to create safe spaces for SEH. While one
brick-and-mortar principal shared that they keep the buildings open beyond the school day for
any student that may need it, 40% of cyber principals explicitly stated the “dignity” of SEH is
protected in a cyber setting because of the confidentiality that is awarded to students when they
attend classes virtually. This emphasis on anonymity represents a specific leadership influence
aimed at disrupting the relational dynamics of stigma. By prioritizing virtual confidentiality, cyber
principals are actively countering the deficit thinking often found in physical school settings,
where the visible 'stigma of housing instability' can trigger lower expectations from staff.
Numerous studies have detailed the stigma SEH face and how they have been impacted by the
deficit thinking from staff (Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al.,
2019; Wright et al., 2021) which leads to negative academic outcomes. In theory, affording a
SEH anonymity while attending school can have academic benefits.

111
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
The results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis for research question 1 are well
supported by the current literature. Eight of the nine themes presented in the open-ended
responses fit into MHN. Basic needs such as food, clothing, housing, and hygiene products fit
within the physiological needs outlined by Maslow. Financial support can be considered a
component of safety needs. Principals also reported the need for community partnerships,
academic support, extracurricular activities, creating safe spaces, and a collaborative approach.
These strategies all fit well within the “love and belonging” component of MHN. Finally, social
emotional support including counseling and mental health support fit within the esteem of MHN.
The ninth theme, technology support, was unique to cyber schools. Principals of cyber charter
schools indicated they provide their students with hot spots and support with the internet. While
this is not explicitly stated as a “need” according to MHN, it can be argued that the internet is
crucial to the success of students in modern society and a “need” more than a want (Datrika &
David, 2022). The strategies school leaders utilize as found in this study and how they seek to
satisfy the needs as identified according to MHN can be found in Figure 9.

112
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Figure 9
Needs of SEH Withing the MHN Framework

Note. This graphic represents the interventions and support school leaders revealed during this
study. The graphic is modified from Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025a,
March 14). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology.
(https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#)
In addition to its strong alignment with MHN, the findings of research question 1,
demonstrate the magnitude of responsibility schools have to meet all needs of students,
especially those experiencing homelessness. The results of this study further support previous
findings of studies conducted by Lafavor, et al (2020), Prinz (2023) and Wagaman et al. (2022)
in which staff perceived schools as the epicenter of student needs. An additional study
conducted by Pescod (2024) found students credited their school as the main reason for their
ability to overcome their circumstances.

113
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Communication. One of the biggest challenges to supporting SEH is identifying them
(Cumming & Gloeckner, 2012; Ferguson & Francis, 2024; Wright et al., 2019; Wright et al.,
2021). In addition, resources for SEH and their families are only effective if families and students
know what is available to them. To improve identification and ensure accessible resources,
students must communicate effectively with SEH and their families. Within the context of EST,
how schools communicate with families and students is a significant part of the microsystem
and mesosystem.
The results of this study found cyber charter schools rely heavily on email, phone calls,
texts, family conferences, and school newsletters. However, brick-and-mortar schools were
more likely to use their school website. Neither school type uses social media or flyers
frequently. The theme of cyber charter schools promoting technology platforms continues. In
addition, it is important to note that cyber charter school principals reported a wider variety of
communication tactics. This is likely influenced by the lack of face-to-face opportunities with
cyber charter school students and their families. The variety of communication tools as well as
the consistency of using more direct and personal methods is supported by previous research
on cyber charter schools. In a study conducted by Wolginer (2016) found students and their
guardians appreciated the increased responsiveness of staff members compared to their
previous experiences in brick-and-mortar schools. This was further supported by research
conducted by Bradley-Dorsey (2022).
These results suggest that while brick-and-mortar schools focus on the student's
physical presence and integration within the school building (microsystem), cyber charter
principals operate more within the student’s home and community environment (mesosystem
and exosystem) to mitigate the external barriers associated with homelessness. The increased
responsiveness reported in cyber settings suggests that these leaders are deliberately
re-engineering the relational dynamics of the mesosystem. By operating more within the

114
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
student's home environment, they exert a leadership influence that compensates for the lack of
physical presence, challenging the assumption that virtual models are inherently detached.
Success Metrics. The final aspect of strategies used to support SEH is how school
leaders determine if their strategies are working. Cyber charter school principals reported relying
on graduation rates and state assessment data to determine the success of supports, while
brick-and-mortar principals reported using attendance more frequently. Interestingly, the
success metrics cyber charter schools use are achievement based, while brick-and-mortars
focus on attendance. While attendance is a predictor for achievement, it is not achievement
itself. The reliance of brick-and-mortar principals on attendance highlights a divergence in
leadership influence and further demonstrates deficit thinking. The decision to utilize attendance
data over achievement data demonstrates that some brick-and-mortar leaders do not maintain a
high academic bar for students and demonstrate a concern over compliance rather than
instructional rigor. In addition, the failure of some traditional leaders to measure SEH success
entirely may inadvertently reinforce deficit thinking, suggesting a lack of agency in changing
outcomes, whereas the cyber leaders' achievement-based approach shifts the relational
dynamic toward one of high expectations and accountability. In addition, cyber charter principals
are more aligned with Rottermon and Regan’s recommendation to ensure a variety of data and
resources are used to monitor student progress to overcome deficit thinking (2025). Alternately,
two brick-and-mortar principals indicated they do not measure the success of SEH. Not only
does this make it difficult to determine what and if strategies to support SEH and their families
are working, but it also means their self-reported understanding and implementation of MKVA
are influenced by their perception rather than data.

Research Question 2
The second research question sought to collect data on the perceived understanding
and implementation of MKVA. Professional development is key to the continued improvement

115
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
and effectiveness of educators (Harris, 2012; Von Dohlen et al., 2019; Wright et al., 2019). This
is true for teachers and school leaders. In addition, training regarding MKVA and its
implementation is required as part of the policy (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.). The results of the
survey found cyber charter principals utilized district and state workshops to stay up to date on
MKVA. Brick-and-mortar principals did not report a preference for a specific type of workshop.
However, two brick-and-mortar principals did not select an option for professional development
but continued with the survey indicating the lack of response was intentional. This indicates a
breakdown between the LEA and policies (exosystem), the school and its leaders
(microsystem), and the communication between the two (mesosystem).
In addition to the professional development they attend, principals were asked to reflect
on their understanding and implementation of MKVA. Brick-and-mortar principals reported a
slightly stronger understanding and implementation of MKVA, while cyber charter principals felt
their schools were more effective at implementing MKVA. Notably, the two brick-and-mortar
principals that indicated they do not measure the success of SEH reported they were “very
effective” at implementing MKVA and had a “good” understanding of MKVA. In addition, the two
brick-and-mortar principals that did not select a professional development option reported they
were at least “moderately effective” at implementing MKVA and agreed they had a “good”
understanding of MKVA. While this survey assessed principals’ perceptions of preparedness, it
raises concerns over how valid their actual implementation can be without proper training on
how to support SEH as well as the data to determine if they are successful.

Research Question 3
The final research question analyzed the achievement data for SEH for the
brick-and-mortar and cyber charter high schools in the commonwealth that had at least 5% of
their population experiencing homelessness. This quantitative data set is meant to determine
the validity of principals’ perceptions on their ability to support SEH. In addition, it provides

116
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
further evidence of the relationship between the exosystem (PDE, LEA, and MKVA) and the
microsystems (high school) in which students are enrolled. The results found there is no
statistical difference between the graduation rates of SEH at brick-and-mortar versus cyber
charter schools within the sample. This is particularly meaningful within the larger context of
student achievement at cyber charter schools. There is significant research indicating students,
regardless of circumstance, perform worse at cyber charter schools than brick-and-mortar
schools (Cordes, 2024; Kingsbury et al., 2022; Ulum, 2022). This has led, in part, to cyber
charter schools being scrutinized. However, it has also been established that students and their
families enroll in cyber charter schools to have a more flexible schedule (Bradley-Dorsey et al.,
2022). This is particularly useful for SEH (Lafavor, et al., 2020; Prinz, 2023; Wagaman et al.,
2022). While it is evident, students do not perform as well in cyber charter schools as they do in
brick-and-mortar schools, this study found achievement is similar within the subgroup of SEH.
This means, the strategies and supports cyber charter schools are providing to SEH are equally
as effective as brick-and-mortar schools. The finding that achievement is similar within the SEH
subgroup suggests that the virtual model is not the primary variable in academic failure. If the
model were the cause, one would expect SEH to perform significantly worse in cyber settings
due to their existing vulnerabilities. Instead, the parity in graduation rates suggests that the
primary driver of the broader performance gaps reported in literature.

Implications
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between SEH, cyber
schools versus brick-and-mortar schools, and the role principals play in supporting SEH. The
findings of this study offer a critical lens through which to examine the systemic and
leadership-level factors influencing the success of SEH across diverse educational settings.
Figure 10 demonstrates the systems that play a role in the development and achievement of
SEH. By situating these results within the frameworks of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems

117
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Theory and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, it becomes evident that while graduation outcomes
may reach parity between brick-and-mortar and cyber charter models, the pathways to those
results are often marked by systemic inconsistencies and variations in leadership efficacy.
These implications underscore a pressing need for enhanced accountability and oversight from
the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) liaisons, as
well as a reimagining of professional development that prioritizes objective metrics and
goal-setting. Furthermore, the data provides a compelling argument for the preservation of
school choice, positioning it as a vital mechanism for educational equity that allows families to
select the environment best suited to their unique socio-economic challenges. The following
section outlines how these findings should inform future policy and practice to ensure that the
educational "microsystem" is equipped to meet both the foundational and academic needs of
SEH.

118
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Figure 10
Ecological Systems of SEH

Note. This graphic demonstrates the systems that influence the achievement of SEH as found in
this study. The graphic is a modification of the five systems of the Ecological Systems Theory
are correct. From Guy-Evans, O. (2025, May 6). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory.
Simply Psychology. (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html#)

119
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Enhancing MKVA Oversight
A critical implication of this research is the apparent disconnect between principals'
perceived effectiveness and their actual engagement with systemic support. While the
McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA) mandates specific training and implementation, the data revealed
a breakdown between the Local Educational Agency (LEA) and school-level leadership,
particularly among brick-and-mortar principals who neglected to report any professional
development workshops they’ve attended. To strengthen the mesosystem, the Pennsylvania
Department of Education (PDE) and regional liaisons must move beyond baseline compliance
toward rigorous monitoring of implementation. This includes more frequent and intentional
professional development opportunities, including training school leaders regarding best
practices, funding, and equitable strategies to meet the needs of SEH. However, the MKVA
requires local liaisons to equal access to education regardless of subgrant funding. Specifically,
the Pennsylvania Department of Education should explore equity-based funding models that are
directly tied to student mobility and housing instability. In addition, this study indicated that many
school leaders either do not track achievement of SEH or have varying data to indicate success.
Policy makers should consider universal accountability measures to ensure appropriate and
effective use of funds such as graduation rates. Furthermore, given the unique operational
strategies of virtual models identified in this study, the PDE must develop virtual school
context-specific implementation guidance to ensure MKVA compliance is tailored to the digital
environment. Finally, the current MKVA policy requires each LEA to have at least one liaison.
However, especially in areas with large populations of SEH, this study emphasizes the need for
more staff dedicated to supporting these students. Policy makers should consider adding
language that ensures the number of staff required to serve as liaisons is directly linked to the
number of students enrolled. Ultimately, strengthening these systemic links ensures that the
policy intent of MKVA is fulfilled through institutionalized support rather than relying on the
varying leadership efficacy of individual principals. While the researcher recommends several

120
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
specific adjustments to supporting SEH, policy makers, LEAs, and school leaders should gain
input from the students and families impacted to determine how to best support this population.

Strengthening Leadership through Data-Driven PD
The divergence in how principals define and measure success highlights a significant
need for professional development focused on leadership efficacy and goal setting. While cyber
charter principals utilized achievement-based metrics like graduation rates, some
brick-and-mortar counterparts relied solely on attendance, a predictor rather than a result, or
failed to measure SEH success entirely. This lack of objective measurement calls into question
the validity of a principal's self-reported effectiveness and highlights their contribution to deficit
thinking. Future leadership training should emphasize Rottermon and Regan’s (2025)
recommendation for diverse data sets to overcome deficit thinking and ensure that school
initiatives are grounded in measurable student outcomes rather than subjective perceptions. By
standardizing data-driven expectations at the state level, the PDE can mitigate the risks
associated with individual principal capacity, ensuring that all SEH, regardless of their school's
delivery model, are supported by evidence-based leadership practices.

Validating School Choice for SEH
Perhaps the most significant finding for the current political landscape in Pennsylvania is
the consistency in graduation outcomes for SEH across both school types. Despite broader
scrutiny of cyber charter performance, these results suggest that for the specific subgroup of
SEH, the virtual model provides a viable and effective alternative. The qualitative emphasis on
confidentiality in the cyber setting, combined with the flexibility to mitigate physical barriers like
transportation, underscores the importance of maintaining robust school choice. For SEH, the
ability to choose a model that aligns with their unique needs is essential for educational equity.
In addition, this study helps provide answers to the previous “chicken or the egg” debate.
Previous studies found students had lower academic achievement in cyber charter schools

121
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
compared to brick-and-mortar schools (Cordes, 2024; Kingsbury et al., 2022; Ulum, 2022).
However, studies also indicate students enroll in cyber charter schools seeking credit recovery
opportunities (Rice, 2006). This means that many cyber charter students pursue a platform
different from brick-and-mortar schools because they are already underperforming. This study
provides evidence that marginalized students, such as SEH, were able to perform just as well
as brick-and-mortar students with similar circumstances. This study pushes the conversation
further by suggesting that for SEH, the virtual model may act as a protective factor rather than a
hindrance. The lack of statistical difference in graduation rates implies that the rigid structures of
brick-and-mortar schools provide no inherent advantage for students in crisis. Consequently, the
prevailing critique of cyber schools as academic failures may be a misdiagnosis that overlooks
how these schools effectively stabilize the 'microsystem' for Pennsylvania's most marginalized
learners.

Limitations and Delimitations
The primary limitation of this study involves the sample size and composition. The small
sample size restricts the generalizability of the quantitative findings and is further complicated
by the potential for non-response bias. In addition, the possibility of a Type II error increases as
the sample size decreases. It is probable that participating principals already possessed a
heightened interest in SEH advocacy or higher confidence in their programs, potentially skewing
the data. Furthermore, the sampling structure allowed for data clustering; because some Local
Education Agencies (LEAs) included multiple high schools, some districts provided more than
one participant. This overlap may influence the independence of data points, as participants
from the same district operate under identical policies and resource allocations, thereby
narrowing the diversity of organizational perspectives.
Beyond sampling constraints, the study’s reliance on self-reported data introduces a risk
of perception bias. Participants may rank their own efficacy and preparedness higher than

122
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
objective evidence suggests. This gap was evidenced by a notable contradiction: while many
principals reported high confidence in their leadership, these assertions were often decoupled
from formal professional development or specific metrics. This suggests that self-reported
efficacy may be an inflated measure of actual practice, influenced by social desirability or
professional expectations rather than daily operational reality.
To address the limitation of the research, the scope was intentionally narrowed to high
school principals within Pennsylvania leading either traditional brick-and-mortar or cyber charter
schools. While this provided a focused comparison of two distinct delivery models within a
shared legislative microsystem, it inherently excluded the perspectives of elementary leaders,
McKinney-Vento liaisons, and students. These boundaries were necessary to maintain a
manageable investigation into the intersection of leadership perception and school setting.
Additionally, the study was delimited using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design. The
conclusions are bounded by the specific qualitative and quantitative instruments used during the
data collection phase.
To account for the small sample size and decrease the possibility of a Type II error,
non-parametric tests (such as the Mann-Whitney U-test) were used in place of traditional
inferential statistics that require normality. While the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to establish
a statistical difference between school types, the effect size (ɸ,r) were used to determine any
subtle, but practical differences. While performing multiple statistical assessments increases the
risk of a Type I error, this study mitigated that risk by delimiting the analysis to three primary
research questions. Rather than conducting independent tests for every survey item, the
analysis focused on overarching constructs: perceptions of MKVA preparedness, success
metrics, and graduation outcomes. By pre-specifying these variables, the number of statistical
comparisons was intentionally limited. This approach ensures that the findings remain grounded
in the study's theoretical framework rather than resulting from exhaustive, exploratory testing
across unrelated data points.

123
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Recommendations for Future Research
To build upon the findings of this study, future research should explore the specific
mechanisms that allow cyber charter schools to offer a more diverse array of supports and
determine how these strategies might be replicated within traditional brick-and-mortar settings.
While brick-and-mortar principals were represented in the thematic analysis of RQ1, cyber
charter principals demonstrated a more intensive focus on technological infrastructure, financial
assistance, and direct legal services. Qualitative data specifically highlighted that 40% of cyber
leaders believe their model protects the "dignity" of students experiencing homelessness (SEH)
through virtual confidentiality. Future investigations should examine whether the flexible,
tech-enabled communication tactics used by cyber schools can be integrated into
brick-and-mortar microsystems to overcome the physical and social stigmas often associated
with housing instability.
Additionally, there is a clear need for larger-scale and longitudinal studies to address the
limitations of the current small sample size and to establish more definitive causal relationships.
Future research should utilize a larger population of Pennsylvania high schools to validate these
findings and conduct comparative analyses of students who spend their entire educational
careers in a single model versus those who transition between brick-and-mortar and cyber
settings. Other options that can be used to further support if students struggle prior to, or
because of their enrollment in cyber charter schools, growth metrics such as PVAAS and
various diagnostics can be used to compare academic growth of students in various school
types. Such longitudinal data would clarify whether the virtual model itself impacts achievement
or if cyber schools primarily attract high-needs students who were already struggling in rigid
traditional structures. While this study focused heavily on urban centers like Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh, future research should investigate regional differences across Pennsylvania.
Comparing rural, suburban, and urban contexts may offer unique findings regarding how
geographical resource disparities impact SEH support. Furthermore, future studies should

124
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
investigate if a difference exists between the four-year graduation rate and the five-year
graduation rate for SEH. Given that these students face significant barriers to stability, a
five-year metric may provide a more equitable and accurate representation of their academic
persistence and school success than the standard four-year window. Finally, while this
dissertation focused on leadership perceptions, incorporating student voices is a critical next
step. Future studies should include the perspectives of SEH to provide insight into how policy
implementation is perceived and experienced in practice. Their lived experiences would offer a
meaningful complement to the leadership data provided here, revealing whether systemic
supports are effectively reaching the students they are intended to serve.

Conclusion
This study employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design to examine and
compare principals’ perceptions of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber and
brick-and-mortar high schools across Pennsylvania. The study had three research questions
which addressed the strategies principals used to support SEH, their perception of
preparedness to support SEH, and the achievement of students in brick-and-mortar versus
cyber charter schools. The first two research questions were answered using a survey shared
with high school principals in forty-four LEAs with at least 5% of their student population
experiencing homelessness. The final research question was investigated through the analysis
of graduation rate data for the same sample as reported on the SchoolHouse Connection
database. A total of twenty-six principals participated in the survey. Twenty-one were principals
at brick-and-mortar high schools, and four were principals at cyber charter high schools.
In response to the strategies and support principals offer SEH, nine themes of support
emerged: social-emotional, basic needs, community partnerships, technology, safe space,
academic support, financial support, extracurricular activities, and collaboration. Cyber charter
schools were statistically more likely to provide technology support (p<.05). In addition, cyber

125
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
charter schools were more likely to provide social-emotional support, help meeting basic needs
such as food and housing, establish community partnerships, provide financial support, provide
legal assistance, provide financial assistance, offer tutoring, and promote collaboration.
Brick-and-mortar schools were more likely to aid transportation. When asked about their
perceptions of preparedness and implementation of MKVA, there was no statistical difference
between high school principals at cyber charter schools versus brick-and-mortar schools
(p>.05). The achievement data of SEH also provided support to indicate there is not a statistical
difference in the graduation rates of SEH in cyber charter schools and brick-and-mortar schools.
This dissertation validates the importance of school choice; demonstrating cyber charter schools
are a viable option for SEH. ​

126
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
References
Almquist, L., & Walker, S. C. (2022). Reciprocal associations between housing instability and
youth criminal legal involvement: A scoping review. Health & Justice, 10(1), 15.
American Federation for Teachers. (2025). School choice facts: AFC Growth Fund. School
Choice. https://www.schoolchoicefacts.org/
Barfield, C. B. (2018). Administrators' perspectives and strategies regarding student
homelessness [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global.
Berner, A. R. (2024). Educational Pluralism and Democracy: How to Handle Indoctrination,
Promote Exposure, and Rebuild America's Schools. Harvard Education Press.
Bowman, D. (2016). Definitions of Homelessness for Federal Program Serving Children, Youth,
and Families. The Administration for Children and Families.
Bradley-Dorsey, M., Beck, D., Maranto, R., Tran, B., Clark, T., & Liu, F. (2022). Is cyber like
in-person? Relationships between student-student, student-teacher interaction and
student achievement in cyber charter schools. Computers & Education Open, 3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100101
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. (2012). Dropping out of high school: Prevalence, risk factors, and
remediation strategies. R & D Connections, 18(2), 1–9.
https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections18.pdf

127
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Marsh, R. M. (2009). Pennsylvania Cyber charter schoolFunding:
Follow the Money. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(4),
49–55. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0306-6
CCA. (2025). Discover the benefits of Cyber charter schoolLearning: CCA. Commonwealth
Charter Academy. https://ccaeducate.me/why-cca/
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2025). Act 1 of 2022 supporting graduation for students
experiencing education instability. Pennsylvania Department of Education.
https://www.pa.gov/agencies/education/resources/policies-acts-and-laws/basic-educatio
n-circulars-becs/purdons-statutes/act-1-of-2022/act-1-of-2022-supporting-graduation-forstudents-experiencing-education-instability.html
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (2025). Types of Schools. Pennsylvania Department of
Education. https://www.pa.gov/agencies/education/resources/types-of-schools.html
Cordes, S. A. (2025). Cyber versus brick and mortar: Achievement, attainment, and
postsecondary outcomes in Pennsylvania charter high schools. Education Finance and
Policy, 19(3), 361–384.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cumming, J. M., & Gloeckner, G. W. (2012). Homeless high school students in America: Who
counts? Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice & Research, 2(2), 104–111.
https://doi.org/10.5929/2012.2.2.9

128
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Cutuli, J. J., & Herbers, J. E. (2019). Housing Interventions and the Chronic and Acute Risks of
Family Homelessness: Experimental Evidence for Education. Child development, 90(5),
1664–1683. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13041
Cutuli, J. J., Torres Suarez, S., Truchil, A., Yost, T., & Flack-Green, C. (2024). Strategies to
better identify student homelessness using data in an urban school district. Educational
Researcher, 53(3), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231215347
Datrika, V. M. R., & David, A. (2022). Refined Model of Maslow’s Needs Theory in Internet Era.
Organization and Human Capital Development (ORCADEV), p-ISSN, 2807-6699.
Ed Data Express. (2024, December 11). Homeless Students Enrolled. Data Download Tool.
https://eddataexpress.ed.gov/
Education Commission of the States. (2022). Understanding school types: Traditional public,
charter, virtual, and more. https://www.ecs.org/understanding-school-types/
Edwards, E. J. (2019). Hidden success: Learning from the counternarratives of high school
graduates impacted by student homelessness. Urban Education, 58(4), 559–585.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919877928
Edwards, E. J. (2023). Resource hopping: Examining the policy barriers faced and strategies
used to establish partnerships for students experiencing homelessness. Urban
Education, 60(5), 1331–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859231214179
ELC. (2025). Historic Victory in Fight for Fair Funding!. Education law center.
https://www.elc-pa.org/historic-victory-in-the-fight-for-fair-funding/

129
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Erickson, P., Cermack, A., Greylord, T., Benning, S., Michaels, C., Lynn, A., & Blake, L. (2025,
February 18). Mental health and well-being ecological model. Leadership Education in
Maternal & Child Public Health. https://mch.umn.edu/resources/mhecomodel/
Fantuzzo, J., LeBoeuf, W., Brumley, B., & Perlman, S. (2013). A population-based inquiry of
homeless episode characteristics and early educational well-being. Children & Youth
Services Review, 35(6), 966–972.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.02.016
Ferguson, A., & Francis, Y. J. (2024). “I may be vulnerable, but I have strengths too”: A
systematic literature review of young homeless people’s educational experience.
Educational & Child Psychology, 41(3), 6–21.
https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2024.41.3.6
Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS. London, England:
SAGE.
FOX 29 Philadelphia. (2024, April 29). Top 10 best high schools in Pennsylvania, according to
US News.
https://www.fox29.com/news/top-10-best-high-schools-in-pennsylvania-according-to-us-n
ews
Frisone, M., & Karakus, M. (2025). Education of children and youth experiencing homelessness
in the School District of Philadelphia, analysis of 2023-24 data. School District of
Philadelphia.
Future Ready PA Index. (2025). Future Ready PA Index. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
https://futurereadypa.org/

130
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Guy-Evans, O. (2025, March 14). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#
Guy-Evans, O. (2025, May 6). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/bronfenbrenner.html#
Harris, S. E. (2012). Education preparation to respond to the needs of homeless children &
youth: Perceptions of school personnel.
Hatch, E., Villagrana, K., Wu, Q., Lawler, S., & Ferguson, K. (2022). Predictors of secondary
completion among homeless youth in three U.S. cities and the potential application of
national policies. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 39(3), 347–359.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00826-8
Havlik, S., & Bryan, J. (2015). Addressing the needs of students experiencing homelessness:
School counselor preparation. Professional Counselor, 5(2), 200–216.
https://doi.org/10.15241/sh.5.2.200
Havlik, S. A., Brookover, D., & Rowley, P. (2024). School counselors’ perspectives on preparing
students experiencing homelessness for college. Journal of College Access, 9(1), 8–24.
Havlik, S. A., Brady, J., & Gavin, K. (2014). Exploring the needs of students experiencing
homelessness from school counselors’ perspectives. Journal of School Counseling,
12(20), 1–38.
Howland, A., Chen, L. T., Chen, M. E., & Min, M. (2017). Exploring socio-demographics,
mobility, and living arrangement as risk factors for academic performance among
children experiencing homelessness. Preventing School Failure, 61(4), 268–279.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1272541

131
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Hoxby, C. M. (2003). School choice and school productivity. Could school choice be a tide that
lifts all boats?. In The economics of school choice (pp. 287-342). University of Chicago
Press.
JHU School of Education. (2023). Educational pluralism. John Hopkins University School of
Education https://education.jhu.edu/impact/educational-pluralism/
Jones, B. T. (2024). Bridging gaps: A narrative inquiry into school leaders’ implementation of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to support homeless students (Publication
No. 31637749). [Doctoral dissertation, Abilene Christian University]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global.
Kelly, M. G., & Maselli, A. (2023). School Finance Policies, Racial Disparities, and the Exploding
Educational Debt: Egregious Evidence from Pennsylvania. Journal of Education Human
Resources, 41(3), 514–533. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.3138/jehr-2022-0003
Kilanowski, J. F. (2017). Breadth of the Socio-Ecological Model. Journal of Agromedicine, 22(4),
295–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2017.1358971
Kingsbury, I. (2021). Online learning: How do brick and mortar schools stack up to virtual
schools?. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6567-6588.
Kingsbury, I., Beck, D., & Bradley-Dorsey, M. (2022). What kind of students attend cyber charter
schools? pandemic enrollment as evidence of negative selection. Frontiers in Education,
7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.901319
Kornbluh, M., Wilking, J., Roll, S., & Donatello, R. (2024). Exploring housing insecurity in
relation to student success. Journal of American College Health, 72(3), 680–684.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2068016

132
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Lafavor, T., Langworthy, S. E., Persaud, S., & Kalstabakken, A. W. (2020). The relationship
between parent and teacher perceptions and the academic success of homeless youth.
Child & Youth Care Forum, 49(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-019-09538-0
Lapp, D., & Shaw-Amoah, A. (2024). Students experiencing homelessness in Pennsylvania: A
2024 update. Research for Action.
Lee, M., & Figueroa, R. (2012). Internal and External Indicators of Virtual Learning Success: A
Guide to Success in K-12 Virtual Learning. Distance Learning, 9(1), 21-28.
http://proxy-sru.klnpa.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/internalexternal-indicators-virtual-learning/docview/1014187293/se-2
Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influences student learning.
Lesisko, L. J., & Sraiheen, A. (2016). K-12 student perceptions of learning through cyber school.
Online Submission, 11(1), 65–79.
Mann, B., Kotok, S., Frankenberg, E., Fuller, E., & Schafft, K. (2016). Choice, cyber charter
schools, and the educational marketplace for rural school districts. The Rural Educator,
37(3), 17–29.
McKenna, G., & Scanlon, G. (2024). Parental perspectives on how homelessness affects
children’s access and participation in education in an Irish context. Educational & Child
Psychology, 41(3), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2024.41.3.40
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.)
Miller, P. M. (2011). A critical analysis of the research on student homelessness. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 308–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311415120

133
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Moon, M. D. (2019). Triangulation: A method to increase validity, reliability, and legitimation in
clinical research. Journal of emergency nursing, 45(1), 103-105.
Morgan, H. (2018). What Every Educator Needs to Know about America’s Homeless Students.
Clearing House, 91(6), 215–221.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1080/00098655.2018.1524357
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2009). Risk Factors for
Learning-Related Behavior Problems at 24 Months of Age: Population-Based Estimates.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(3), 401–413.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9279-8
Murphy, J. F., & Tobin, K. (2012). Addressing the Problems of Homeless Adolescents. Journal of
School Leadership, 22(3), 633–663.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1177/105268461202200308
Mushonga, D. R., Uretsky, M. C., Rose, B. A., & Henneberger, A. K. (2024). Linking
homelessness in secondary school to postsecondary and early labor market outcomes in
Maryland using a continuum of risk framework. Applied Developmental Science, 28(2),
125–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2022.2156343
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2023). Role of the principal.
https://www.nassp.org
National Center for Homeless Education. (2023). Data and statistics on homelessness.
https://nche.ed.gov/data-and-stats/
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the

134
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Navarro, B. (2021). How principals of New York City urban high schools address the unique
needs of students who are homeless (Publication No. 28411401). [Doctoral dissertation,
Concordia University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Nespor, J. (2019). Cyber schooling and the accumulation of school time. Pedagogy, Culture &
Society, 27(3), 325–341.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1080/14681366.2018.1489888
PA Cyber. (2025). Why PA Cyber?. The Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School | PA Cyber.
https://pacyber.org/why-pa-cyber
PaFEC. (2025). Types of school choice programs. PaFEC.
https://paedchoice.org/types-of-school-choice-programs/
Parrott, K. A., Huslage, M., & Cronley, C. (2022). Educational equity: A scoping review of the
state of literature exploring educational outcomes and correlates for children
experiencing homelessness. Children and Youth Services Review, 143, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106673
Patton Davis, L. & Museus, S. (2019). What Is Deficit Thinking? An Analysis of
Conceptualizations of Deficit Thinking and Implications for Scholarly Research. Currents,
1(1), 117-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/currents.17387731.0001.110
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2024). Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania.
https://www.education.pa.gov

135
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Pescod, M. (2024). Understanding motivation towards education through exploring the
educational experiences of young homeless people. Educational & Child Psychology,
41(3), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2024.41.3.55
Prinz, A. M. (2023). Supporting elementary youths experiencing homelessness in public schools
(Publication No. 30424769). [Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global.
Rice, K. L. (2006). A Comprehensive Look at Distance Education in the K-12 Context. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425–448.
Riebe, P. (2024). Overcoming Bias in Standardized Testing.
Rosales, J.. & Walker, T. (2021). The racist beginnings of standardized testing. neaToday.
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing
Rosales, J., & Walker, T. (2021). The racist beginnings of standardized testing. neaToday.
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-beginnings-standardized-testing
Rottermond, H., & Regan, B. (2025). The Dangers of Teacher Deficit Thinking and Language:
Practices to Disrupt the “They’re So Low” Literacy Paradigm. Michigan Reading Journal,
57(3), 35–45.
Saldaña, J. (2018). Researcher, analyze thyself. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918801717
Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2016). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage.
SchoolHouse Connection. (2025). Child and youth homelessness in the United States: Data
profiles. https://schoolhouseconnection.org/article/data-profiles

136
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
SchoolHouse Connection. (2025). What is the McKinney-vento act?.
https://schoolhouseconnection.org/article/mckinney-vento-act-quick-reference
Scolforo, M. (2025, June 4). Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania would see funding cut under
Bill passed by the State House. AP News.
https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-cyber-charter-school-funding-cea2869433dc8f2
0c283ea8f22420f5b
Shahbaz, M. K. (2021). Global Academic Journal of Linguistics and Literature.
Sternberg, R. (2006). Fuzzy Funding of Online Delivery. School Administrator, 63(7), 13.
Sun, J. (2006). The Statistical Analysis of Interval-Censored Failure Time Data. Springer.
Tokunaga, H. (2019). Fundamental statistics for the social and Behavioral Sciences. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Ulum, H. (2022). The effects of online education on academic success: A meta-analysis study.
Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 429–450.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10740-8
UNICEF. (n.d.). Brief on the Social Ecological Model. UNICEF.
https://www.unicef.org/media/135011/file/Global%20multisectoral%20operational%20fra
mework.pdf
Uretsky, M. C., & Stone, S. (2016). Factors associated with high school exit exam outcomes
among homeless high school students. Children & Schools, 38(2), 91–98.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdw007

137
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025, April 22). College enrollment and work activity of high
school graduates news release - 2024 A01 results. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.htm
U.S. Congress. (2002). McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.
U.S. Department of Education. (2024). Local educational agencies (LEAs). https://www.ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Suppression. Protecting Student Privacy.
https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/content/suppression
Von Dohlen, H. B., Moore, J., Von Dohlen, L. J., & Thrift, B. E. (2019). Aspiring administrators'
knowledge and leadership capacity to mitigate issues of poverty and homelessness in
schools. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 3(2).
Wagaman, M. A., Gattis, M. N., Watts, K. J., Yabar, M. P., Blair, D., Haynes, T. S., & Williams, E.
G. (2022). The role of schools in supporting students experiencing homelessness:
Perceptions of school staff. Children & Schools, 44(2), 70–78.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdac002
Walker, M. (2025, January 23). Spending. Open PA Gov. https://www.openpagov.org/spending/
Wasti, S. P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. R., Sathian, B., & Banerjee, I. (2022). The growing
importance of mixed-methods research in health. Nepal journal of epidemiology, 12(1),
1175.
Wolfinger, S. (2016). An exploratory case study of middle school student academic achievement
in a fully online virtual school (Publication No. 10129096). [Doctoral dissertation, Drexel
University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

138
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Wright, T., Nankin, I., Boonstra, K., & Blair, E. (2019). Changing Through Relationships and
Reflection: An Exploratory Investigation of Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Young
Children Experiencing Homelessness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(3),
297–308. https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0921-y
Wright, T., Ochrach, C., Blaydes, M., & Fetter, A. (2021). Pursuing the Promise of Preschool: An
Exploratory Investigation of the Perceptions of Parents Experiencing Homelessness.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 49(6), 1021–1030.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01109-6
Yurdakul, G., & Arar, T. (2023). Revisiting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Is it still universal
content? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 33(8), 1103–1130.
https://doi-org.proxy-sru.klnpa.org/10.1080/10911359.2023.2177227

139
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Demographic Information
How long have you been a school leader?
●​ Less than 1 year
●​ 1-3 years
●​ 4-6 years
●​ 7-10 years
●​ More than 10 years

What is the highest education level you have attained?
●​ Bachelor's degree
●​ Master's degree
●​ Doctorate
●​ Other (please specify)

Which of the following most accurately defines your current position?
●​ School principal
●​ Assistant Principal
●​

Other administrative role (please specify)

How long have you been in your current position?
●​ Less than 1 year
●​ 1-3 years
●​ 4-6 years
●​ 7-10 years

140
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
●​ More than 10 years

Besides your current position, what other positions/titles do you currently hold in K-12 public
school education? (If any)

Which of the following best describes your current school?
●​ Brick-and-mortar public school
●​ Cyber Charter School

Have you ever served as a principal in a cyber charter school? *
●​ Yes
●​ No

Have you ever served as a principal in a brick-and-mortar school? *
●​ Yes
●​ No

How long were you a principal in a cyber charter school?
●​

Less than 1 year

●​ 1-3 years
●​ 4-6 years
●​ 7-10 years
●​ More than 10 years

141
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
How long were you a principal in a brick-and-mortar school?
●​

Less than 1 year

●​ 1-3 years
●​ 4-6 years
●​ 7-10 years
●​ More than 10 years

Understanding of McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA)

How would you rate your understanding of the McKinney- Vento Act’s provisions?
●​ Excellent
●​ Good
●​ Fair
●​ Poor
●​ Very Poor

What type of training or professional development have you received regarding the MKVA?
(Check all that apply)
●​ District-provided workshops
●​ State-sponsored training
●​ Online courses
●​

Other (please specify)

Implementation of MKVA

142
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
How effectively do you feel your school has implemented the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act?
●​ Not effective at all
●​ Slightly effective Moderately effective
●​ Very effective
●​ Extremely effective

Please list the specific initiatives or programs your school has implemented to support homeless
students under the MKVA.

Impact on Students
How do you measure the success of MKVA programs on homeless students' academic
performance and overall well- being? (Check all that apply)
●​ Standardized test scores
●​ Graduation rates
●​ Attendance records
●​ Student feedback
●​ Other (please specify)

Collaboration and Support

Please list how you collaborate with community organizations and social services to support
homeless students.

School Environment and Culture

143
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS

Please list strategies you employ to create a supportive and inclusive environment for homeless
students in your school.

In What Ways?
What services does your school provide to students facing homelessness? (Select all that
apply)
●​ School Supplies
●​ Transportation assistance
●​ Tutoring and academic support
●​ Counseling and mental health services
●​ Access to hygiene products
●​ Clothing and uniforms
●​ Housing referrals
●​ Healthcare referrals
●​ After-school programs
●​ Summer programs
●​ College and career counseling
●​ Legal assistance referrals
●​ Parent and family support services
●​ Access to technology (e.g., laptops, internet access)
●​ Other (please specify)

How do you communicate with families about the available services for homeless students?
(Select all that apply)

144
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
●​ School newsletters
●​ Emails
●​ Phone calls
●​ Text messages
●​ Parent-teacher conferences
●​ School website
●​ Social media
●​ Flyers and brochures
●​ Community meetings
●​

Other (please specify)

Professional Development and Knowledge

To what extent do you agree with the statement: "As a school leader, I have adequate
knowledge and training on MKVA implementation."
●​ Completely agree
●​ Agree
●​ Somewhat agree
●​ Disagree
●​ Completely disagree

Powered by Qualtrics

145
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Appendix B: Request to Use Questionnaire

146
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Appendix C: Consent to Use Questionnaire

147
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Appendix D: IRB Approval

148
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Appendix E: Informational Letter

​

​

RESEARCH PARTICIPANT INFORMATIONAL LETTER
Principals’ Perceptions of Students Experiencing Homelessness in Cyber Charter
Schools Compared to Brick-and-Mortar Schools in Pennsylvania
Whitney Wesley, EdD.
whitney.wesley@sru.edu
Phone: 724-738-2282
Morgan Baker, MAT
mlb1064@sru.edu
Phone: 901-201-2499

Invitation to be Part of a Research Study
You are invited to participate in a research study. In order to participate, you must be a school
administrator currently employed at a cyber charter high school or brick-and-mortar high school
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with at least 5% of the student population identified as
“homeless”. Taking part in this research project is voluntary.
Important Information about the Research Study
Things you should know:

149
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
●​ The purpose of the study is to compare the perceptions, preparedness, understanding of
MKVA, strategies, and academic outcomes (graduation rates) of high school principals in
cyber charter schools to those in brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania regarding
students experiencing homelessness.
●​ If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete an online survey via Qualtrics
which includes 16 questions (Likert-scale, demographic, and open-ended items). This is
expected to take approximately fifteen minutes.
●​ Risks or discomforts from this research include minimal risk. You may feel mild
psychological discomfort related to discussing sensitive topics such as homelessness or
self-reflection on your understanding of the McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA).
●​ The study will not provide direct benefits to you as a participant. However, the outcomes
of this study may benefit others by informing policy, training, and practices across
Pennsylvania Local Education Agencies (LEAs) as they work to better serve students
experiencing homelessness.
●​ Taking part in this research project is voluntary. You do not have to participate, and you
can stop at any time without penalty.

Please take time to read this entire form and ask questions before deciding whether to take part
in this research project.
What is the Study About and Why are We Doing it?
The purpose of the study is to investigate the perceptions of high school principals regarding the
support and achievement of students experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber charter
schools compared to brick-and-mortar schools in Pennsylvania. With the gap in literature

150
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
surrounding the academic achievement of cyber charter schools and SEH, a need is presented
to focus on the perceptions of high school principals in supporting the needs of SEH.
What Will Happen if You Take Part in This Study?
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire
using the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire, which is adapted from a validated instrument
developed by Dr. Brian Jones (2024), contains seventeen questions. The survey includes
demographic questions, Likert-scale items measuring your knowledge and perceptions of the
McKinney-Vento Act (MKVA), and open-ended response questions regarding strategies and
support systems for SEH. I expect this to take about fifteen minutes.
How Could You Benefit From This Study?
Although you will not directly benefit from being in this study, others might benefit because the
study's outcomes can inform policy, training, and practices for Local Education Agencies (LEAs)
across Pennsylvania in order to better support SEH and navigate school choice options.
What Risks Might Result From Being in This Study?
The primary risk is informational, involving a breach of confidentiality. To minimize this risk, data
is collected anonymously, and all responses are stored on password-protected devices.
How Will We Protect Your Information?
I plan to publish the results of this study. To protect your privacy, I will not include information
that could directly identify you.
The survey is collected anonymously in Qualtrics. I will protect the confidentiality of your
research records by storing the data on a password-protected computer and on
password-protected cloud platforms.

151
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
What Will Happen to the Information We Collect About You After the Study is Over?
I will not keep your research data to use for future research or other purposes. Your survey
responses will be stored securely, and all electronic data files will be securely destroyed three
years after the conclusion of the study.
What Other Choices do I Have if I Don’t Take Part in this Study?
If you choose not to participate, there are no alternatives.
Your Participation in this Research is Voluntary
It is totally up to you to decide to be in this research study. Participating in this study is voluntary.
Even if you decide to be part of the study now, you may change your mind and stop at any time.
You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to answer. If you decide to withdraw
before this study is completed, your data will be destroyed and not included in the final study’s
analysis.
Contact Information for the Study Team and Questions about the Research
If you have questions about this research, you may contact Morgan Baker MAT.,
mlb1064@sru.edu or the dissertation chair, Dr. Whitney Wesley EdD.,
whitney.wesley@sru.edu .
Contact Information for Questions about Your Rights as a Research Participant
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information,
ask questions, or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the
researcher(s), please contact the following:
Institutional Review Board
Slippery Rock University

152
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
104 Maltby, Suite 302
Slippery Rock, PA 16057
Phone: (724)738-4846
Email: irb@sru.edu

Your Consent
By clicking on the survey link below, you are agreeing to be in this study. Make sure you
understand what the study is about before you click on the link. I will give you a copy of this
document for your records. I will keep a copy with the study records. If you have any questions
about the study after you click on the link, you can contact the study team using the information
provided above.
By clicking on the survey here, I understand what the study is about and my questions so far
have been answered. I agree to take part in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any
time. A copy of this signed Consent Form has been given to me.
Survey Link: https://qualtricsxmjxr66twnb.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_daO8a8L1SSYLRtA

153
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
Appendix F: Recruitment Email
Subject: Invitation to Participate in a Research Study on Supporting Homeless Students

Attachment: Informational Letter

Dear Principal,

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Morgan Baker, and I am a Doctoral
Candidate at Slippery Rock University. I am conducting a research study titled "Principals’
Perceptions of Students Experiencing Homelessness in Cyber Charter Schools Compared to
Brick-and-Mortar Schools in Pennsylvania”. The purpose of the study is to investigate the
perceptions of high school principals regarding the support and achievement of students
experiencing homelessness (SEH) in cyber charter schools compared to brick - and - mortar
schools in Pennsylvania. In order to participate, you must be a school administrator currently
employed at a cyber charter high school or brick - and - mortar high school in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with at least 5% of the student population identified as
“homeless”. Taking part in this research project is voluntary.

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online questionnaire
using the Qualtrics platform. I expect this to take about fifteen minutes. Although you will not
directly benefit from being in this study, others might benefit because the study's outcomes can
inform policy, training, and practices for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) across Pennsylvania
in order to better support SEH and navigate school choice options.

Participation in this study involves:

154
HOMELESSNESS IN CYBER VS. BRICK-AND-MORTAR SCHOOLS
●​ A 15 minute survey completed via the Qualtrics platform.
Additional information on the purpose of the study, risks, and benefits can be found in the
informational letter attached to this email. Please review the letter in its entirety before clicking
on the link to the survey. By clicking on the survey link below, you are agreeing to be in this
study. Make sure you understand what the study is about before you click on the link. If you
have any questions about the study after you click on the link, you can contact the study team
using the information provided above.

By clicking on the survey here , I understand what the study is about and my questions so far
have been answered. I agree to take part in this study. I understand that I can withdraw at any
time. A copy of the informational letter has been given to me.

Survey Link: https://qualtricsxmjxr66twnb.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_daO8a8L1SSYLRtA

Thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions or require additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me at mlb1064@sru.edu.

With Gratitude,
Morgan Baker
Doctoral Candidate
Slippery Rock University